From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ELPA policy Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:01:06 -0600 Message-ID: <86bnb18nnx.fsf@stephe-leake.org> References: <87ziyuaqhl.fsf@petton.fr> <22074.42230.156669.584780@retriever.mtv.corp.google.com> <87ziyoxvdp.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <83k2psnzyh.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvuorz7n.fsf@gmail.com> <8337wfon3f.fsf@gnu.org> <56401834.8080402@yandex.ru> <83ziynma4s.fsf@gnu.org> <5640C6A0.5010709@yandex.ru> <83twovm9es.fsf@gnu.org> <868u65afvh.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <87lha5snji.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <87d1vhsmuj.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <878u65slue.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> <874mgtsjwn.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447196543 24659 80.91.229.3 (10 Nov 2015 23:02:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:02:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: aaronecay@gmail.com, Eli Zaretskii , Stromeko@nexgo.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: David Engster Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 11 00:02:11 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHvG-0003lN-NZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:01:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36026 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHvG-0001Za-M5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:01:54 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41518) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHuj-0001Vm-Ov for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:01:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHuf-0006on-A6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:01:21 -0500 Original-Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([70.40.196.235]:39994) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHue-0006nu-SE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:01:17 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 25412 invoked by uid 0); 10 Nov 2015 23:01:14 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2015 23:01:14 -0000 Original-Received: from host114.hostmonster.com ([74.220.207.114]) by cmgw3 with id g6191r0092UdiVW0161CcQ; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:01:12 -0700 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Caqbutbl c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=CQdxDb2CKd3SRg4I0/XZPQ==:117 a=CQdxDb2CKd3SRg4I0/XZPQ==:17 a=DsvgjBjRAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=9i_RQKNPAAAA:8 a=hEr_IkYJT6EA:10 a=x_XPkuGwIRMA:10 a=qtqOOiqGOCEA:10 a=CrV9qhLVtFNMWCjsSyUA:9 Original-Received: from [76.218.37.33] (port=52852 helo=TAKVER2) by host114.hostmonster.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwHuZ-0005bI-9W; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:01:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: <874mgtsjwn.fsf@isaac.fritz.box> (David Engster's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:02:00 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (windows-nt) X-Identified-User: {2442:host114.hostmonster.com:stephele:stephe-leake.org} {sentby:smtp auth 76.218.37.33 authed with stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org} X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 70.40.196.235 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:193992 Archived-At: David Engster writes: > John Wiegley writes: >>>>>>> David Engster writes: >> >>> This is not about reaching a consensus. This is about you giving proper >>> reasons for such a big change. >> >> To be clear, I would also put Eshell (though not pcomplete) into the category >> of "big things that should be in ELPA" -- albeit, the subset of ELPA that will >> be in the release tarball. >> >> It's hard to pin down why in a manner that fits in an e-mail. If Eshell were >> in ELPA today, and we were talking about moving it into core, I would have >> just as much trouble justifying that move too. Perhaps this simply underscores >> the fact that we don't have an agreed upon ELPA policy we can all refer to. > > In my opinion, the main question is whether something provides > infrastructure for other packages to use. I think it is a reasonable goal to allow ELPA packages to serve in that role, as long as the "other packages" are also normal or tarball ELPA packages. > This is precisely what CEDET tries to do. Yes. However, now the shoe is on the other foot: why must infrastructure packages be in Emacs core? I think the trigger is "some other _core_ code wants to depend on it". That would trigger a move to Emacs git, as a core ELPA package (the package could still have intermediate released via the Gnu ELPA server). > I wouldn't have much trouble with putting parts of CEDET in ELPA, > namely those parts that do not directly provide infrastructure, like > support for certain languages, project types, indexing tools, etc. Good, but let's not try to do that for Emacs 25; since we are trying to get to feature freeze, it's too much. > It is still not clear to me what exactly is gained by moving core > packages to ELPA. One gain is making it clear that other core code is not allowed to depend on it. This is in turn to ensure that it doesn't creep into the dumped code. But I'm not sure that's an important reason. -- -- Stephe