Re: CVS is the `released version'

[joakim@verona.se]

I think we have different experiences, which maybe accounts for our
diffierent views on package systems.

I havent used XEmacs much at all, and have no experience with its
package system. What David describes about it sounds like its mostly a
hassle, so I agree we dont want a package system like that.

It seems the XEmacs package system is mostly geared towards
modularizing emacs itself. I wouldnt need that for my emacs usage
patterns. If emacs was 1TB big, I would still download and use it, and
the size of a typical emacs install is not particularily bothersome
compared with most other software packages out there.

The particular need I feel Toms ELPA forfills is exploring emacs
packages that are not already in emacs core. Having a central
repository would also make it easier for such packages to eventualy be
accepted in emacs core.

Take for example two such valuable packages as CEDET and ECB. Both are
candidates for emacs inclusion, but have existed as separate packages
for years, and it will probably be years still before they are
included in a released emacs. These packages deserve a much larger
user-base, which they could have had with a package system such as ELPA.

If the only emacs that was available to me was the released emacs and
the packages that followed with it, I would very likely not be an
emacs user. 

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:


> Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> package.el is attached to a web site, ELPA, where package updates
>> are uploaded.  The idea here is twofold.
>
> The central repository (and the necessary policies for maintaining it,
> and the requirement to find intermediaries) is what I find works
> absolutely worst with the XEmacs package system.  It is the main
> culprit for XEmacs distributing outdated packages.
>
> Once one has a central repository, there is no significant advantage
> over not having packages but instead putting everything inside of
> Emacs.
>
>> First, many packages are released between Emacs releases; package.el
>> makes it simple to update to these releases and use them.  Second,
>> not every useful Emacs Lisp package out there is going to be
>> included in Emacs.  We've seen over the years that having a separate
>> repository is in fact very useful to Emacs users.
>
> Who saw that?
>
>> Another thing package.el provides is simple installation.  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).  Users don't have to modify their .emacs for
>> updates to load-path, the Info path, or a list of autoloads.
>
> They don't have for packages that are included in Emacs, anyway.
>
> -- 
> David Kastrup

-- 
Joakim Verona