From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: prompt to create non existent directory. Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 15:25:18 +0100 Message-ID: <864lqcwyep.fsf@zoho.com> References: <4278608a-d510-46f5-9cdc-3033a2edecbf@googlegroups.com> <20171027201031.GD29934@tuxteam.de> <86k1zgmcf1.fsf@zoho.com> <20171028070135.GA21162@tuxteam.de> <86fu9xm2uf.fsf@zoho.com> <20171102105721.GD27253@tuxteam.de> <868tfox269.fsf@zoho.com> <20171102131915.GA6089@tuxteam.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1509632782 18492 195.159.176.226 (2 Nov 2017 14:26:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:26:22 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 02 15:26:16 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1eAGRf-0003wj-S7 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 15:26:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60564 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAGRn-0001xz-7U for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 10:26:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39453) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAGRN-0001xt-BV for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 10:25:54 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAGRK-0000EV-3d for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 10:25:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=40815 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAGRJ-0000DB-SV for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 10:25:50 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eAGR3-00015p-J4 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 15:25:33 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Lines: 67 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Mail-Copies-To: never Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q7vGqTYWxzIeUIDrfI7mng7e+cA= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:114727 Archived-At: t wrote: > Because for ~98% of those packages I want > "tried and tested" and not "latest and > greatest". The other 2% I care specially for > I put more admin work into (and bear with > ocassional breakage). > > [...] > > It's still one gadget per app to take care > of. I don't feel like feeding thousands of > gadgets, even if they are shell scripts. The issue with the "~2%" is that the repo's SW is too old or sometimes unavailable. Why can't this be available without doing it 100% manually? Well, it can, and that's what those gadgets do! Why not for Emacs as well? We have [M]ELPAs for additional software. Why is it such a far-fetched idea upgrading Emacs in a similar manner, if it can be done, as I suspect it can? If you for development or other reasons want to get the source and compile it nobody is stopping you! The ideal situation is: the distro's pack manager gets you whatever piece of SW you want, in any state you want, at whatever version. All thru the same interface. OK, so this isn't the case. What's wrong with bridging the gap by those specialized getters and upgraders? Which are also shell tools with a similar, tho not identical, interface. But similar in terms of the UX. You say you want the distro's pack manager for 98% and compile for 2%. Why not the distro for 94.5%, the gadgets for 4%, and compilation for 1.5%? Or any other distributions anyone would want? I fail to see how this is a principal question! It is just a matter of convenience. Some people aren't happy with what they find in the repos. So the do their own managers because people generally find that easier and less work than getting the source and compiling manually. Isn't that the reason for the pack managers to begin with? If it is a good idea once, why not twice or how many times people see the need for? The repos are good but not perfect or universal. Specialized needs find specialized solutions. Perhaps one day that will enter the repos to a degree it won't be needed. Who knows? -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573