Re: [Emacs-diffs] feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added

[Alain Schneble <a.s@realize.ch>]

phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes:

>> Do you really want to give up this standard file structure?
>
> Yes, because it is not standard. It's one of two standards.
>
> If you install org with package.el, then you get
>
> ~/.emacs.d/elpa/org/org
> ~/.emacs.d/elpa/org/etc/ORG-NEWS
> ~/.emacs.d/elpa/org/org.el

I have nothing against this structure for user-added packages.  Because
it is up to the user to decide whether to use package.el or not.  If she
chooses to use it and install *additional* packages, then I think it is
legitimate to keep and use this ~/.emacs.d/elpa/ structure.

> So, org-mode has to support two independent directory layouts. If we use
> package.el as part of the core or tarball emacs build, then org-mode has
> to support only one directory layout.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see an issue in supporting both layouts.
The ~/.emacs.d/elpa/ layout, e.g. to support (old?) Emacs
tarball/distributions that do not include an ELPA tarball (or core)
package like org and which the user installs manually using package.el.
And the current layout for all ELPA core and ELPA tarball packages that
will be part of Emacs tarball in upcoming releases.

> The Emacs build will, for the foreseeable future, have to support two
> layouts, that is true. But, Emacs already does and it is (or rather was)
> relatively easy to add to the build.

Maybe or maybe not.  If we would use the current structure for ELPA core
and ELPA tarball packages, then the build wouldn't have to support the
/lisp/packages/[package] structure that follows the
~/.emacs.d/elpa/[package] layout.  It would only have to know how to
copy the package files to the proper locations.

Alain