From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: joakim@verona.se Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CVS is the `released version' Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:02:29 +0200 Message-ID: References: <2cd46e7f0705101124r72000f78xdf05d18ca815ca57@mail.gmail.com> <17991.47259.210100.801472@localhost.localdomain> <864pmfzz3c.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1179129839 27468 80.91.229.12 (14 May 2007 08:03:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:03:59 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 14 10:03:58 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 1HnVXA-0007aZ-Qh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 10:03:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnVet-0006hz-Gb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 04:11:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HnVdg-0004tm-1T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 04:10:40 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HnVde-0004rG-0Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 04:10:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HnVdd-0004r4-Rn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 04:10:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mxfep02.bredband.com ([195.54.107.73]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HnVVr-0000X7-Tj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 May 2007 04:02:36 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2.bredband.com ([195.54.107.84] [195.54.107.84]) by mxfep02.bredband.com with ESMTP id <20070514080230.WIBZ25484.mxfep02.bredband.com@ironport2.bredband.com> for ; Mon, 14 May 2007 10:02:30 +0200 Original-Received: from ua-83-227-131-3.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se (HELO kurono.home) ([83.227.131.3]) by ironport2.bredband.com with ESMTP; 14 May 2007 10:02:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: <864pmfzz3c.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> (David Kastrup's message of "Mon\, 14 May 2007 08\:41\:27 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: Solaris 8 (1) 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:71001 Archived-At: 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 writes: > Tom Tromey 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