Re: Adding use-package to ELPA

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

"John Wiegley" <johnw@gnu.org> writes:

>>>>>> "PK" == Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
> PK> The less concrete reason is tied to me being the maintainer of a
> PK> alternative package (setup on ELPA), that takes a different approach to
> PK> the issue of a configuration macro. As you can imagine, I prefer it over
> PK> `use-package', that I see as having inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies,
> PK> that should be addressed if it were added to the core.
>
> My only desire is the least inertia for users. Personally, I'd prefer it if
> setup, leaf and use-package were all in core, and let the user decide which
> one they wish to require at startup time. These types of packages are a bit
> special, because -- since they configure everything else -- it's best if they
> need the least configuration to become available. But I also understand that
> we tend to pick "a way" when something goes into core, and this results in
> maintainers having to make a choice of one over the other.

FWIW, as the maintainer of setup, I would strongly advise not to add it
to the core, as the package is far less mature.  I don't know enough
about leaf to say anything about the package, though it seems to be that
adding both would be superfluous, as they are relatively similar.  My
point with adding use-package to ELPA is that it already simplifies the
configuration to

    (unless (package-installed-p 'use-package)
      (package-install 'use-package))

without having to first configure MELPA.  How much of a difference this
makes is of course a different discussion.

> At the moment my only compelling evidence for use-package I find is its
> current ubiquity. Most Emacs package I come across on GitHub these days offer
> a use-package form for configuration. It would be nice if these could be
> copied and pasted into one's .emacs with an absolute minimum of extra fuss.

I agree, if any configuration macro were to be added, it would have to
be use-package, if anything just because of this point.

> But I'm not asserting that use-package is the best solution to the underlying
> problem. I am interested to know more about the idiosyncrasies you've found.
> The core of use-package has become highly user-configurable, so maybe it's a
> problem that can be changed.

I stopped using use-package ~2 years ago, so I don't remember the
details, but it could sketch up a few points that could be discussed,
and perhaps be addressed or at least acknowledged before adding the
package to the core.

-- 
	Philip Kaludercic