From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Friendly discussion about (package-initialize) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:24:21 +0300 Message-ID: <83h8xfsx5m.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83inhwrqvh.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1502349923 12455 195.159.176.226 (10 Aug 2017 07:25:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Radon Rosborough Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 10 09:25:16 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dfhqF-0002cL-Nw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:25:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51475 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfhqK-0007hJ-Jn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 03:25:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50488) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfhph-0007Wl-RZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 03:24:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfhpe-0007a1-Nq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 03:24:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:39348) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dfhpe-0007Zt-KC; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 03:24:38 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2793 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dfhpb-0000Uo-9V; Thu, 10 Aug 2017 03:24:36 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Radon Rosborough on Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:39:44 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:217391 Archived-At: > From: Radon Rosborough > Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:39:44 -0700 > Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Currently, Emacs has the opinion that you should call > `package-initialize' in your init-file, and it enforces this opinion > by automatically inserting such a call directly into your init-file at > startup, or whenever you initialize the package management system. > > I view this behavior as wrong. Other people feel that it is the best > solution to the problem of users putting package configuration in > their init-file, which runs before `package-initialize' is called in > startup.el. > > That is why we are having this discussion. > > > startup.el already calls that function (as IMO it should) > > I disagree, but won't speak further unless you think it will be > relevant to the discussion. This sounds like a contradiction. If we call package-initialize from startup.el, why does it have to also be called from the init files? And since you are opposed to Emacs putting tyhis call to init files, why do you disagree that calling package-initialize in startup.el is wrong? After all, that's where Emacs performs all the initialization for the upcoming session, and that should include initializing the packages which need initialization. > > where did we make the wrong turn with package.el. > > When Emacs started modifying the init-file specifically for package.el. So having the call in startup.el is correct after all? Now I'm utterly confused.