From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Friendly discussion about (package-initialize) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:24:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1502310308 23959 195.159.176.226 (9 Aug 2017 20:25:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 20:25:08 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 09 22:25:04 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 1dfXXK-0005ve-9k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:25:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49673 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfXXQ-0004ry-Jf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:25:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47391) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfXXK-0004rr-8f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:25:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfXXH-0000Ua-5D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:25:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=37789 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfXXG-0000Tq-Vg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 16:24:59 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dfXX5-0005CC-OU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:24:47 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 65 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:J+tbec0z/tBTSvjDxPvbXvov5Jo= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:217384 Archived-At: >> > The problem is that even if I don't use package.el, there may be >> > some stuff left in ~/.emacs.d/elpa from previous times. >> Then don't do that: > I'm actually not sure what "that" is referring to here. "That" refers to leaving stuff in ~/.emacs.d/elpa when you're not using package.el. > Agreed, but it doesn't have to be done in this way. We could > accomplish the same thing simply by providing a template init-file, > without any of the problems I've mentioned. Maybe we should provide a template init file. [ This file should be basically empty (tho could contain lots of comments. ] But auto-creating this file just because you start Emacs is also a problem (similar to the auto-editing of this file you're complaining about). > Is there any particular reason why providing a template init-file > would be a worse solution than modifying the init-file on the fly? We also want to cater to old users of Emacs (who already have their own ~/.emacs) who start to use package.el. >> Inevitably there will be situations where this design goal will >> clash with the end-user who wants to use something else and will >> want to explicitly "disable" package.el. > I'm fine with disabling package.el being an explicit step. Not with it > being an ongoing battle (where package.el strikes back every time I > accidentally use one of its functions without the proper advices > defined). Which functions do you use accidentally? >> Do you mean that it would be worse, or that it would be better but >> still not good enough? > Better but still not good enough. Great. Then let's try to do that. I suggest you M-x report-emacs-bug and request this change (so it gets a tracking number, and its dedicated discussion). > do agree that this situation is uncommon; it just strikes me that the > mechanism currently in use is rather fragile if it "breaks" in such a > situation. I wonder what you mean by "break". >> Another thing we could consider is to drop the automatic call to >> package-initialize in lisp/startup.el (again, based on the idea that >> this has now been made unnecessary by package--ensure-init-file). > I am strongly in support of this Great. Then let's try to do that. I suggest you M-x report-emacs-bug and request this change (so it gets a tracking number, and its dedicated discussion). > unless it means that we will be more reluctant to eventually remove > `package--ensure-init-file'. I don't see why it would have such an effect. Stefan