From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: decision on moving core packages to ELPA; also move to obsolete? Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 21:32:04 +0200 Message-ID: <83ft458s3v.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86a6ugnopl.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <83im94b17m.fsf@gnu.org> <834kknatxs.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1nqaph6.fsf@gnu.org> <83eejqak4s.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtyd8wep.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30218"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org, daniele@grinta.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 16 20:36:34 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kpcbB-0007m8-SY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 20:36:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60906 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kpcbA-0001TH-Vb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:36:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50150) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kpcWw-0006Mb-5x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:32:10 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:33363) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kpcWv-0001sU-6w; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:32:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1836 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kpcWu-0007uh-7G; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 14:32:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:50:10 -0500) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:261038 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: daniele@grinta.net, stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:50:10 -0500 > > >> > Are you talking about something that already works, or about something > >> > that _could_ work, after some changes? > >> The sysadmin scenario I described is one that has worked pretty much > >> from the beginning of package.el. > > That's not what I asked. > > Then I don't know what you asked :-( > Could you clarify your question? Here's how we got to that: > > Doesn't package.el install stuff under ~/.emacs.d/elpa/ ? > > If so, what happens with installed Lisp files under /usr/share/ ? > > The way package.el works, is that it collects all the packages it can > find installed locally under `package-directory-list`. This list can > contain many different versions of the same package. `package-activate` > then choose which ones of those packages to activate, under the > constraint that only one version of each package can be activated in > a given session (and under the additional constraints setup by the user > in `package-load-list`). > > This was designed so that a sysadmin can install a bunch of packages and > users can then make use of them without being stuck using all those the > sysadmin has chosen to install, not stuck with the version that the > sysadmin installed. > > If the Emacs tarball bundles packages, it would basically act as "a > sysadmin" in this regard. Users could still override that set of > bundled packages with older/newer versions or even choose not to > activate some of the bundled packages (tho I'd hope that the packages we > choose to bundle are clean enough that this would never be useful, just > like it's not considered useful for the user to be able to remove stuff > from lisp/loaddefs.el). Are you talking about something that already works, or about something that _could_ work, after some changes? If the former, then where's the code to support it? My question was about the last part: it seemed to describe how things _should_ work, but I'm not sure we already have that implemented. Do we?