Re: package and testing rant (was Re: package.el, auto-installation, and auto-removal)

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>>> that package.  So the first question to decide would be if elpa.git is a
>>> source archive or a package archive.
>> I want it to be a source archive.
> You're wrong to want that for several reasons:

I don't think I can be "wrong" there, tho you may disagree with the
importance of some of my wishes: there has to be a source somewhere, and
I wish it to be available at a single place (which is a currently single
Git repository but could be a tree of repositories, as long as I can
"make pull" and get them all, and as long as they're on gnu.org property
to remind authors that they shouldn't be pushing stuff there that
doesn't have proper copyright).

> - you constrain packages to have source that is managed only by the
>   elpa.git makefile

I could live with a secondary archive of "pre-built" thingies so that
the build can be done externally.

> I don't understand why you don't do the obvious thing that nearly every
> packaging system does and accept the need for specifically made
> artifacts.

I don't know what you mean,


        Stefan