From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen Eilert" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs Package Management Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:09:47 -0300 Message-ID: <485b0c380808050609y56042595l42a5bb05b34458f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <485b0c380808011427n4d3144eey3f8daf3abac83bf4@mail.gmail.com> <87ej589vku.fsf@hagelb.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7257_28359289.1217941787499" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217941806 10213 80.91.229.12 (5 Aug 2008 13:10:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tromey@redhat.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , phil@hagelb.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 05 15:10:56 2008 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 1KQMJS-0006ng-UO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:10:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38219 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQMIX-0005B2-Bl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:09:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQMIQ-00055j-Ee for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:09:50 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQMIP-00052g-7h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:09:49 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41204 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQMIP-00052N-2t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:09:49 -0400 Original-Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.154]:38575) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KQMIO-0001fD-IH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:09:48 -0400 Original-Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 9so1285394ywk.66 for ; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:09:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=6qWVGPi7snU70rWTPIqZhGLQLCdQ1wtGgN0zJZbJDHM=; b=CEOFnV5G7qzUKTLMU7YUvjQymfZdFhvFM33L+BDD5cB0Fi+PuxsftE/rDa6who4s+V 73f+gdvF1Ft0OaLl5MdVI2wuMJP0c7u+upvAwfFjLMOphfww3jh/inaPpdXigcGAldM7 pS1LT+ThTkYBOKw2g9ZSMurqJOt3r5Whk1jVM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=oFVoPEQeuhSxCoEMVQAqvdDOEfZNqT6YtvXEvtN8ryLGeyk+42+4PeTaZcHuaHdAJm /r/esjNwu/OHrb1rtP/UX8mgU6o82PSCbrJqxD8IpEfy289RNiLwi9zz5SmgTJNuDmT1 ftulgElubfWsrr6UuRXs6PAjGrP6pJdG++7lM= Original-Received: by 10.150.201.13 with SMTP id y13mr1353754ybf.238.1217941787510; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:09:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.150.215.12 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 06:09:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:102084 Archived-At: ------=_Part_7257_28359289.1217941787499 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Richard M. Stallman wrote: > Some unbundled Elisp packages (and some bundled ones as well, sadly) > have all kinds of nasty flaws. Using CL is the least of my worries in > this arena, > > Perhaps we can't do anything about flaws in the Lisp programs that are > distributed independently of us. Their developers never made any > commitment to follow our standards. But FSF-copyrighted programs > are GNU packages, and have maintainers who have undertaken to do so. > In the context of package management, who's going to enforce those package restrictions? Should packages be approved manually before being added to whatever repository we devise? There are many possible uses for a packaging system. One of them is making it easier to install packages that are *not* part of Emacs. In this context, making it harder to submit packages is probably not a good idea. AFAIK, there's no M-x send-paperwork yet... There's another possible use: to enable the distribution of a "lightweight" Emacs, removing a lot of packages that are currently bundled but providing an easy way to get and install them. This was not my initial motivation, but I can see some utility in that approach. In this case, it's obvious that the packages should conform to whatever standards the FSF wants to enforce. --Stephen programmer, n: A red eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate monsters. ------=_Part_7257_28359289.1217941787499 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Richard M. Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
   Some unbundled Elisp packages (and some bundled ones as well, sadly)
   have all kinds of nasty flaws.  Using CL is the least of my worries in
   this arena,

Perhaps we can't do anything about flaws in the Lisp programs that are
distributed independently of us.  Their developers never made any
commitment to follow our standards.  But FSF-copyrighted programs
are GNU packages, and have maintainers who have undertaken to do so.

In the context of package management, who's going to enforce those package restrictions? Should packages be approved manually before being added to whatever repository we devise?

There are many possible uses for a packaging system. One of them is making it easier to install packages that are *not* part of Emacs. In this context, making it harder to submit packages is probably not a good idea. AFAIK, there's no M-x send-paperwork yet...

There's another possible use: to enable the distribution of a "lightweight" Emacs, removing a lot of packages that are currently bundled but providing an easy way to get and install them. This was not my initial motivation, but I can see some utility in that approach. In this case, it's obvious that the packages should conform to whatever standards the FSF wants to enforce.


--Stephen

programmer, n:
       A red eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate monsters.

------=_Part_7257_28359289.1217941787499--