From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alain Schneble Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:42:50 +0200 Message-ID: <86d1iv5pb9.fsf@realize.ch> References: <20160916203414.25203.87032@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <83inst1vut.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3ekjz2.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83vawpx677.fsf@gnu.org> <87h989ixxd.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83mvi1ww6m.fsf@gnu.org> <87wph5fw0w.fsf@russet.org.uk> <838ttlwodt.fsf@gnu.org> <878ttl3342.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <8360opwjs2.fsf@gnu.org> <8760oosrn8.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83shrsvj3g.fsf@gnu.org> <86twc8r8gw.fsf@realize.ch> <83r37cvfo6.fsf@gnu.org> <86oa2gr7jb.fsf@realize.ch> <86k2d4r5y5.fsf@realize.ch> <87bmygfjso.fsf@russet.org.uk> <86bmygqh49.fsf@realize.ch> <87shrs6qak.fsf@russet.org.uk> <86y41koy4m.fsf@realize.ch> <87wph4t1a3.fsf@russet.org.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1476956673 30257 195.159.176.226 (20 Oct 2016 09:44:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:44:33 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (windows-nt) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Stromeko@nexgo.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Phillip Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 20 11:44:25 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 1bx9ta-0005lU-IM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:44:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53466 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bx9tc-0001wh-GS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:44:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59839) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bx9sq-0001up-7I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:43:33 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bx9sp-0005JP-4y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:43:32 -0400 Original-Received: from clientmail.realize.ch ([46.140.89.53]:1578) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bx9sj-00059u-Rp; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:43:26 -0400 Original-Received: from rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (Unknown [192.168.0.105]) by clientmail.realize.ch with ESMTP ; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:43:18 +0200 Original-Received: from myngb (192.168.66.64) by rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (192.168.0.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.516.32; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:42:52 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87wph4t1a3.fsf@russet.org.uk> (Phillip Lord's message of "Wed, 19 Oct 2016 23:35:48 +0100") X-ClientProxiedBy: rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (192.168.0.105) To rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (192.168.0.105) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Windows NT kernel [generic] X-Received-From: 46.140.89.53 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:208534 Archived-At: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes: > Alain Schneble writes: > >> Indeed. But in case a package offers a public feature/interface to be >> used by anybody, including non-package code, such an explicit handling >> would be TRTTD, IMO. > > Yes, I think that is true. I don't think that there is explicit support > for this form of deprecation in Emacs at the moment. We should write a > package and add it to ELPA! Good idea. Why not. I just doubt that many packages will ever require this. >>> Just removing "food-package-1.0" from `load-path` gives a less nice >>> error message, but it still fails fast, and requires no developer >>> support >> >> True. But I don't think we have to account for all possible "misuses" >> and bugs. We all run into issues. But we have to try to not get biased >> by a specific problem one once had and which might have taken hours to >> fix > > I try not to. It's just a problem that packages in core having when > upgrading from ELPA. It's a clear, specific. I've had it, true, and it > took me a lot of time to work out, but as Achim says so have other people. Ok. >> And I think this discussion has nothing to do with the directory layout. >> It's a different topic IMO, though you try to fix it with the directory >> layout. > > It is a problem that a package.el based solution would not have, and > which it achieves through in a simple and straight-forward way, though > it's use of it's directory layout. Alright. But look, no one prevents us from removing the old version from load-path, for packages that have their own directory. Large packages happen to have their own directory anyway. For single file packages, the issue is non-existent, as renaming such a file is not really a use case as it would essentially introduce a new package (name). And then there may be a bunch of (smaller) multi-file packages that could run into such a "deleted-file-issue". But keep in mind that all bundled core/tarball packages are from a trusted source and we can circumvent or fix these problems (in the worst case with explicit mechanism we have discussed). It's in Emacs control. So I think that legitimating a separate directory for each structure using this edge case sounds like nit-picking. > Personally, I consider the directory layout to be a side issue -- direct > use of package.el is the main issue. It's there, Emacs already supports > in for packages in ~/.emacs.d, and in site lisp, it's already plumbed > into startup and all the files in ELPA are already built with package.el > in mind. It's there and we fortunately can extend it. > To me using it is a slam dunk, as our friends over the pond like to say. > I am not at all surprised that people objected to my idea of introducing > a new top level directory is contentious -- that is why I asked the > question in the first place; I am a little surprised at the objections > to a per-package directory structure for these packages. So far, I have > only understood two objections: Drew's and Stefan's. Why would it be a > problem? IMHO, trying to implement the simplest possible file structure and not introducing a new one but reusing the existing one, are reasons enough. Also, having a dual directory layout in released Emacs tarballs doesn't feel good to me. And to my understanding, we haven't seen a road block with the "integrated" ./lisp layout so far. Alain