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: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 03:13:53 -0600 Message-ID: <86fv0c6gq6.fsf@stephe-leake.org> References: <87ziyuaqhl.fsf@petton.fr> <87fv0labbf.fsf@web.de> <87y4eda0kl.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> <86ziyl8ote.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <95e718da-7704-42b9-b327-cadd98b4e6f3@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447233351 7772 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2015 09:15:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:15:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: John Wiegley , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 11 10:15:40 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 1ZwRV7-0006Xm-Mv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:15:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38797 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwRV6-00027J-OK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:15:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52139) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwRUN-00020b-DG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:15:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwRTj-00065X-P0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:14:47 -0500 Original-Received: from gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([69.89.20.226]:36316) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwRTj-00064J-Hw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:14:07 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 1545 invoked by uid 0); 11 Nov 2015 09:14:04 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2015 09:14:04 -0000 Original-Received: from host114.hostmonster.com ([74.220.207.114]) by cmgw4 with id g9Dz1r00D2UdiVW019E2mK; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:14:04 -0700 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=IekUBwaa 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=yPCof4ZbAAAA:8 a=Uel8-X-W505vxlOwo1oA:9 Original-Received: from [76.218.37.33] (port=57149 helo=TAKVER2) by host114.hostmonster.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwRTa-0001xl-U1; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:13:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <95e718da-7704-42b9-b327-cadd98b4e6f3@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 10 Nov 2015 15:01:06 -0800 (PST)") 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: 69.89.20.226 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:194039 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: > Here's a naive question regarding where you place Lisp code > that is distributed with Emacs (part of the tarball): Will > anything change for users, depending on where you happen to > manage the code wrt ELPA etc.? > > I'm guessing (and hoping) not, so that the distributed > directory structure will remain the same. Is that correct? That's a good point. But I'm not clear what previous state you are comparing to. There are two cases; 1) A package that is currently in Emacs git moves to Gnu ELPA git but remains in the Emacs tarball. 2) A package that is currently in Gnu ELPA git stays there, and is added to the Emacs tarball. I would argue that tarball ELPA packages should be installed in some system level elpa directory (similar to the user's .emacs.d/elpa), not in the main emacs/lisp install directory. I don't think the history of a package should determine where it is installed. So in case 1), I expect the package to be in a different installation directory from the previous Emacs release. But it's still in the default load-path, so this change is transparent to the user. But it's not too important; the important distinction is that tarball ELPA packages are _not_ in the developer Emacs workspace, so core code cannot accidently depend on them. -- -- Stephe