From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Integrating package.el Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:28:06 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87wrxwost5.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87wrzr6ugo.fsf@hagelb.org> <87ocl242jc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d41ihx9g.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87ocl167wx.fsf@hagelb.org> <8763795zsh.fsf@hagelb.org> <87r5pmwcf8.fsf@hagelb.org> <87hbp0qezu.fsf@lifelogs.com> <201bac3a1003010826s690a83fape7c44cadc672ac84@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1267465530 11125 80.91.229.12 (1 Mar 2010 17:45:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:45:30 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 01 18:45:26 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nm9gL-0002bO-TC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:45:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44212 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nm9gL-0008LF-Bg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:45:25 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nm9Pt-0006ST-B9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:28:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58125 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nm9Ps-0006Rn-9Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:28:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nm9Pr-0004wb-HW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:28:24 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:33280) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nm9Pr-0004wH-7n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:28:23 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nm9Pp-0000bs-QN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:28:21 +0100 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:28:21 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:28:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 45 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1.91 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:VI8WsTKE00JCSrRsAeZrkAVjpyk= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:121502 Archived-At: On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:26:46 +0100 Jonas Bernoulli wrote: JB> Without actually having looked at package-maint.el I believe that JB> elm.el is more advanced - so I have heard and do in part JB> believe... At least the metadata that I generate is *different* from JB> that generated by package-maint.el or manually; and used by JB> package.el. I think the data I generate has some advantages - mainly JB> I do extract more information. Can you or Phil/Tom explain the metadata capabilities of elm.el and package-maint.el respectively, please? It would help to know what the authors think and do a side-by-side comparison. JB> Of course anyone is free to generate the package list as required by JB> package.el himself. This could either be done by using the metadata JB> I have generated and converting it [1] [2] or by getting a recent JB> tarball [3] of all the git directories of all mirrored packages and JB> generating it directly using package-maint.el. That may be necessary if package.el becomes the default package manager in Emacs. It doesn't seem too hard since, as you say, the ELPA-style metadata is a subset of the Emacsmirror metadata. It would also be possible to make a special package.el setup for Emacsmirror which would pull elm.el and manage elm.el packages through it, if that was required. JB> I am working on git support as I do think it has some considerable JB> advantages - generally people seam to disagree. Since I think using JB> a dvcs instead of tarballs should be preferred I have absolutely no JB> interest in working on generating tarballs myself. I agree. 2100 packages over HTTP is crazy, an update would be very costly whether you use a single database or one per package. OTOH for a few packages or specific situations HTTP makes sense so it's a matter of providing a uniform frontend over various backend protocols. JB> Also I do not much feel like discussing this anymore. At this point JB> I simply have nothing that would demonstrate the benefits and at the JB> same time I doubt that anyone can come up with an argument that JB> would convince me that it's not even worth writing a JB> prove-of-concept. Your input is valuable at any stage in the discussions, so thank you for contributing. Ted