Re: Calling (package-initialize) sooner during initialization

[Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com>]

2015-04-18 19:25 GMT+01:00 Nic Ferrier <nferrier@ferrier.me.uk>:
> I am kind of throwing up my arms in frustration at this.
>
> A way was picked a long time ago. Y'all now want to break that way in
> the most breaking way possible instead of being incremental.

All I want is to fix a problem a large number of less-knowledgeable
users are experiencing. I don't think there is a way to do that
without imposing at least a minor inconvenience on a (hopefully small)
portion of the more experienced users. But I'd like to keep it just
that at most (a small inconvenience), which is what the currently
implemented solution was about. I thought that being forced to keep
";(package-initialize)" somewhere inside your init file would be small
inconvenience at most, but some people seem to disagree, and that's
how these more complicated discussions started showing up.

> Are you sure that this will be least damaging to most people? Why are
> you sure?

Which specific proposal are you referring to?
Taylan's suggestions seems to be very non-intrusive on the user,
"seems" being an important word here. If you think it'll damage a lot
of people, please let us know.

AFAICT, people who need to do some special configuration before
`package-initialize' would now have to move that stuff into another
file (the suggested "pre-package-init.el") but that's about it. In
exchange, it will make package configuration less headache inducing
for inexperienced users, and even fixes the compatibility between
package.el and custom.el (which the currently solution does not).