From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Option to not automatically customize-save-variable `package-selected-packages' Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:47:00 +0200 Message-ID: <83io1lrq0b.fsf@gnu.org> References: <56C43D17.7010009@alice.it> <831t8aufoe.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1455875246 20856 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2016 09:47:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:47:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: johnw@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, angelo.graziosi@alice.it To: alex Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 19 10:47:23 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aWhei-0000z1-Iu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:47:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50469 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWhed-00081b-07 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:47:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54861) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWheY-000813-N8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:47:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWheX-0003IO-OZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:47:10 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43165) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aWheT-0003Ge-Su; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:47:05 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2881 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aWheT-0001l4-3g; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:47:05 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from alex on Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:08:18 -0500) 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: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:200193 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:08:18 -0500 > From: alex > > > This seems to be a general complaint about package.el using Custom to > > save the data about installed packages. I see no arguments as to why > > it's wrong to use Custom for that. > > There's two major issues that I have in this instance: > > 1) The user is barely notified that the variable is being saved. In other instances (such as the Customize > interface), it's quite obvious that it's going to change your customize file. Installing/upgrading packages > changes the file with no obvious notice or prompt (as the notice gets drowned out by the package > install/upgrade/delete messages). It's also not obvious at all that your customize file is going to change from > those actions (it hasn't since these actions were created). What would the prompt say in this case? If it suggests not to save the selected packages with the other customizations, and the user opts not to save, wouldn't that mean Emacs will not know these packages weer selected next time it starts? If so, letting the user choose that alternative would be a disservice, I think. > 2) The package list for a particular user can differ between different machines. This makes it annoying to > share a config among the machine with something like git. I think this data would be better suited to a separate > place where it's easy go gitignore it, like with abbrevs, recentf and so on. It's tied not only to the customization > in the init file but also to the state of the computer itself (that is, any packages installed/deleted outside of your > init file). As I wrote elsewhere, this could happen with any other customized variable, and we currently don't have any solution for that except expecting the affected users to write some Lisp to solve this. I see no reason yet why this particular customization is different as to require a specialized solution just for it. Can you tell why you think it is different?