Re: using use-package

[<tomas@tuxteam.de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:13:42PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Stefan is saying that many packages do things _wrong_.
> 
> Actually, no.  What I was saying is that several use-package features
> are only useful if a package is poorly packaged.
> 
> In the mean time, it became apparent that the reason for that is that
> I assume people (will) use ELPA to install their packages, whereas
> use-package was designed for the case where packages are installed some
> other way.

FWIW, and based on a recent experience of mine, yes, I think both ways
are needed/useful and complement each other. Recently, I installed some
package from ELPA (magit) and it failed to byte-compile. I've yet to
investigate what went wrong (perhaps my Emacs version is too new/old,
what have you), but I now find myself wrangling with the complexities
of the package itself *and* those of the packaging system.

So some "wholly integrated solution" makes life easier only when things
work out (duh ;-) Otherwise it makes life harder, and what's more important
in my view -- it tends to make a stronger separation of "outer circle"
and "inner circle", making it more difficult to get involved.

> Hence use-package partly overlaps with ELPA, and in those parts that
> overlaps, the work is done differently: in ELPA the work is done by the
> packager, whereas in use-package the work is done by the end-user (since
> there's no packager doing that work for him).

Perhaps the only problem is in this "differently": if ELPA and use-package
manage to converge towards some set of common conventions, the end-user
is only to win (whereas I'm convinced that there must be a first phase
of divergence: how else are we going to explore different options?)

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlXMRlIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbkzgCggjAn2jW0iCGvTxwms7JJ5Ivn
VegAn1E+BLPj/ENQOCgit2G1vf1aIJYi
=j1G8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----