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: feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:09:44 +0300 Message-ID: <83h98axk5z.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160916203414.25203.87032@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87a8egw2az.fsf@russet.org.uk> <8360p3i2gt.fsf@gnu.org> <86a8efqf9p.fsf@realize.ch> <8337k7hysd.fsf@gnu.org> <8660p3qd99.fsf@realize.ch> <831szrhwsr.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p12qzw.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83vax0en1u.fsf@gnu.org> <87pon5ek3q.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87twcgttjf.fsf@russet.org.uk> <86a8e7symk.fsf@realize.ch> <8737jzl4u9.fsf@russet.org.uk> <8337jz8dg8.fsf@gnu.org> <83insv3tnl.fsf@gnu.org> <83d1j33qgg.fsf@gnu.org> <87wph96cto.fsf@russet.org.uk> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1476771033 28990 195.159.176.226 (18 Oct 2016 06:10:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:10:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, andrewjmoreton@gmail.com, phillip.lord@russet.org.uk To: John Wiegley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 18 08:10:26 2016 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 1bwNbH-0004Yq-Hh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:10:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39126 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwNbJ-00068g-As for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:10:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36171) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwNbD-00066I-3i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:10:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwNb9-0001Nl-UW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:10:07 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57355) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwNb9-0001Ne-Re; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:10:03 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2751 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bwNb8-0008So-IH; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:10:03 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from John Wiegley on Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:09:15 -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:208388 Archived-At: > From: John Wiegley > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Andy Moreton , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:09:15 -0700 > > PL> I think it's decision time. I am happy to carry on a little further with > PL> the package.el based approach that I have outlined, fixing the one > PL> significant issue with it and then I will stop. If you don't want to go > PL> this way, that's fine. Sorry, I don't understand the kind of decision that is being requested. I understand that one alternative is that you "carry on a little further" with your approach, although I'm vague about the details of that, or what is your goal. But the other alternative is entirely unclear to me. What is it? > At this time, I don't want to go "full package.el". However, I'd like to > include it, since it's key to how users interact with ELPA-based packages. I don't think I understand what does "full package.el" mean. However, package.el is already included, it's in lisp/emacs-lisp/. > I think Eli said it best: > > EZ> We need to adapt package.el to the new needs. It was not written with > EZ> these goals in mind, so it needs to learn new tricks. Throwing it away is > EZ> not acceptable, but neither is blindly accepting its current assumptions, > EZ> which were not designed for the use case we are discussing. > > So let's not move to "directory per package", but let's do support "properly > upgrading a package that came with the distribution". That's obviously fine with me ;-) I just am not sure this is one of the alternatives that Phillip considers. Thanks.