From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CVS is the `released version' Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 19:10:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <2cd46e7f0705101124r72000f78xdf05d18ca815ca57@mail.gmail.com> <17991.47259.210100.801472@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1179529904 3340 80.91.229.12 (18 May 2007 23:11:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 23:11:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: joakim@verona.se, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tom Tromey Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 19 01:11:42 2007 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 4.50) id 1HpBbj-000326-To for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 May 2007 01:11:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HpBbj-0005Bd-3l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 19:11:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HpBaY-0004YS-Ar for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 19:10:22 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HpBaX-0004Y5-NV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 19:10:21 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HpBaX-0004Y1-IH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 19:10:21 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HpBaX-0006ex-91 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 18 May 2007 19:10:21 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HpBaW-00043m-Fh; Fri, 18 May 2007 19:10:20 -0400 In-reply-to: <17991.47259.210100.801472@localhost.localdomain> (message from Tom Tromey on Sun, 13 May 2007 18:17:15 -0700) X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:71357 Archived-At: package.el is attached to a web site, ELPA, where package updates are uploaded. In that case, I think the real proposal is not "add a package system to Emacs" but rather "set up a standard site for Emacs add-ons". If the add-ons are put in such a web site, finding and installing them would be much easier. Maybe it is worth doing that, though calling it a "package system" seems like hype. But there are two important non-technical problems with this approach. 1. It could reduce the incentive for people to assign copyright on their code. 2. It would mean that Emacs refers people very strongly to a site that isn't run by the GNU Project. I don't know what their policies are. But even if they are good, now, we have no way to assure that remains so. These problems would be eliminated if we put the package repository on gnu.org and limit it to packages that are copyright FSF. In other words, I can see that installing packages in a separate repository and releasing them there, but I don't want this to alter the legal and publicity arrangements that we would have made for including them in Emacs. Packages are downloaded (including their dependencies, if any) and installed for you, autoloads are extracted, the package is byte-compiled, and when Emacs starts up,the packages are "activated" (meaning the autoloads are evalled). It sounds convenient. As long as it doesn't require a lot of change in how you write the Lisp programs, I have nothing against this. It also mandates a couple file names, the main one being the .el file that holds the "define-package" call. Something like a "define-package" call is one of the things that makes me dislike package systems. Can we avoid this? Why is it needed?