From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Radon Rosborough Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Summary and next steps for (package-initialize) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:22:20 -0700 Message-ID: References: <83tw12cocz.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1503249798 31437 195.159.176.226 (20 Aug 2017 17:23:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 17:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 20 19:23:14 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1djTwP-0007tJ-7x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 19:23:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40729 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1djTwV-0001Vy-Si for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:23:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36540) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1djTwG-0001TZ-Sn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:23:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1djTwF-0000na-VU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:23:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lf0-x236.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::236]:34652) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1djTwE-0000n0-Dt; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 13:23:02 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-lf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id g77so26525970lfg.1; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:23:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9bdHCgqY0Poaerk0EZtFCNcceFkjatPjUYb0I8f82OI=; b=gDvLS0jRnRUlWGOqm/sHghjmm7r2yJnqR7al3FhetmxX/h038/v+ISQ9sqQ9z6kkJN 5z5YIb5M3o+mh5tvCiQQXywajqijZF5sHONJ3xYUW2kqO+89ShElC4xccme0qeyhVXSl GnYYVrKs4ckQaZZ+NT1/L0owntjasQxBjPmVBT7RFjP/u2In1LWH7fQb9N5GrTEIMsDR ZrfICrusQMAlIRuHMaJfINzr7HNtNYb6Rtl6rIztTPsqRXOC56p7GzMvz2TsmMZX0TwY tt4czEz8ilZmNbwLv+MO0Q+Q25sO4T40aL22HTAUO9H4oTgDCOoE5pTa98yNOlmDx2Oz cz7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9bdHCgqY0Poaerk0EZtFCNcceFkjatPjUYb0I8f82OI=; b=iUcr9XDRvrlIdgAsoF8Lb9gkxFo5KMxM7RdNyTQXugMYlT/sx2Exclx45JSYpchYrb eTU6wEFfPjXwZL8rm/rkrasVM2Tw2UE9iXKvE/9cd0VV+L2Uj23c1tT5sMrPbU4eiQna sEqIQaeXk1tLF3l+K46qMQh83HPApyiIcpfykG2E6Z5XeACISNc1Cz0zhbdGRn1RO4tv 5J9kLwZ0qUMM9MHeRyLxwxp/YB0OTZdUYQrnb1qGSrhVeLR2oTRK9wtAfPVDvHHrBM/4 DDvI/nIAKpHLHNqhnP4I1PYXKjW5TycKFyMB6j/MfLmLYWWXREl2PejdkAYQauqVKQ7l 2pJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5g8RCj3In/EYWHRyJrr1NWFYOfr6WRvp5z+0FB+hCpwmm0/XIe5 o4FL9wZsRwKCSiU1y9Wo0zKYsDPthaObtcY= X-Received: by 10.46.76.9 with SMTP id z9mr5257788lja.134.1503249780929; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.25.80.3 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83tw12cocz.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c07::236 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:217638 Archived-At: > My take on this, after reading the discussions kindly pointed to by > Mark, is that your proposal will replace one problematic situation > with another. Agreed. Drew has already explained why the new situation is also problematic. > Whether the new situation will be better than the current one is > arguable, I've already explained in my email starting this thread why I think the new situation will be better than the current one. If you disagree, please tell me why. > I don't think it will be significantly better. Can you provide justification for this? Such justification would take the form of explaining why the advantages I listed are not valid, or there are disadvantages that I missed. > I myself cannot say I like the idea of Emacs creating an init file > in the user's home directory. Do you like the idea of Emacs modifying the user's init-file automatically, even if it already exists? If not, then do you agree that my proposal at least reduces the problem? > Already a few people said they were unhappy with such a solution. But did they say they were less unhappy with the current solution? Drew certainly didn't. > I think we should instead explore the possibility that > package-initialize will be called only in startup.el. That solution > came up during the discussions, but AFAICT was dismissed almost > without any serious consideration. The issues raised against it > could probably be solved by splitting the package initialization in > two, one part before, the other after the user's init file is read. Can you please elaborate on exactly how this would work, so that we can make an informed comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposals?