Re: Re Re: Why not include all ELPA packages in an Emacs release?

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <paaguti@gmail.com> writes:

> Message-ID: <86r0dksk1x.fsf@gnu.org>
>
>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>> > If there are packages on ELPA which we consider to be a must for users
>>> > (I don't think there are, but maybe I'm forgetting something), lets
>>> > add them to core instead.
>>>
>>> If Emacs considers in-buffer completion an important feature, then I'd
>>> say corfu and cape are must.  vertico and marginalia are also must in my
>>> book since they offer a better experience with vertical minibuffer
>>> completion.
>
>> If people want them, and their developers agree, we can add them.
>
> <irony>At this point, why not company, which BTW works nicely both on
> windows and -nw Emacs?</irony>

I unironically think that this might be a better choice.

> <seriously>For every package you think of integrating, there will be a lot
> of people how use a different package for the functionality, so this spells
> exchanges without end here and a lot of users frustrated in the world
> outside the list </seriously>

Bundling a package with Emacs is not the same as enabling it by default.
I guess the exception are major modes, where it makes sense to have
these added to auto-mode-alist, but otherwise something like Company
shouldn't be enabled by default.

>>> And while we're at it: There are sometimes requests for adding AUCTeX to
>>> core.  Do you have an opinion about that?
>>
>>I don't mind.  But let's hear what others think.
>
> Well, AUCTeX was so feature-bloated that made me start using vanilla Emacs
> and writing the things I really needed myself. So grateful it existed,
> because it made my elisp evolve :-)

This sounds like a LaTeX/AUCTeX-specific issue.  IIUC, you prefer the
built-in latex-mode that AUCTeX supersedes, right?  Or what do you mean
by bloated?

> Now seriously, One of the nicest things in Emacs is the package repo(s).
> I have the Emacs I want because we have use-package (and that is not so
> long ago)
> to make our lives (relatively) easy. And I dread to think what would happen
> WTR to size of the distributable object (.app in macos, .rpm/.deb/.snap in
> Linux,
> etc.) if we start shipping everything in it.

There are still plenty of cases where people cannot just install
packages over the net and are stuck with whatever Emacs is bundled with.
ELPA remains useful to upgrade packages that don't depend on new core
features, but having "blessed" packages bundled without having to
explain to new-comers "well yes, Emacs can do that but you have to
install foo, bar and baaz first" (here "foo", "bar" and "baaz" are more
often than not some weird names that they cannot remember in the first
place) is helpful and underappreciated by many.

WRT the package size, I wouldn't worry that much.  Even a large package
like AUCTeX is just under 10MB in my /elpa/ directory.  The mean package
side on ELPA is about 100-150KB.  Packages like Debian that don't
bundled .el sources (instead just using .elc) by default might be even
better off.

> My .2 cents

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic on peregrine