Re: Summary and next steps for (package-initialize)

[Angelo Graziosi <angelo.g0@libero.it>]

Hi Radon,

> Il 23 agosto 2017 alle 7.17 Radon Rosborough <radon.neon@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> [...]
> Drew, Stefan, Eli -- would you be comfortable with this alternative
> proposal, to add a second init-file as I've outlined above? It would
> make package.el "just work" in all cases, without requiring any change
> to the user's init-file, as long as users read docstrings before
> customizing `package-load-list' etc., and as long as we're prepared to
> sacrifice a little backwards compatibility (although maybe we can be
> smart about it and make the change pretty painless).
> 
> Angelo -- ... sorry :P
> 
>           I still think that calling package-initialize in the
>           init-file is "the right thing" from an architecture and
>           modularity perspective, but having a second init-file may be
>           a more pragmatic solution.


I don't know which problem you are trying to solve and its details, but the idea to introduce an init file to fix it sound wrong to me.

Why not to introduce an init file to fix something in foo1.el or foo2.el or... f..?

No, what ever you are trying to fix is 'wrong'... :P