Re: Friendly discussion about (package-initialize)

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

>> > The problem is that even if I don't use package.el, there may be
>> > some stuff left in ~/.emacs.d/elpa from previous times.
>> Then don't do that:
> I'm actually not sure what "that" is referring to here.

"That" refers to leaving stuff in ~/.emacs.d/elpa when you're not using
package.el.

> Agreed, but it doesn't have to be done in this way. We could
> accomplish the same thing simply by providing a template init-file,
> without any of the problems I've mentioned.

Maybe we should provide a template init file.
[ This file should be basically empty (tho could contain lots of
comments.  ]
But auto-creating this file just because you start Emacs is also
a problem (similar to the auto-editing of this file you're complaining
about).

> Is there any particular reason why providing a template init-file
> would be a worse solution than modifying the init-file on the fly?

We also want to cater to old users of Emacs (who already have
their own ~/.emacs) who start to use package.el.

>> Inevitably there will be situations where this design goal will
>> clash with the end-user who wants to use something else and will
>> want to explicitly "disable" package.el.
> I'm fine with disabling package.el being an explicit step.  Not with it
> being an ongoing battle (where package.el strikes back every time I
> accidentally use one of its functions without the proper advices
> defined).

Which functions do you use accidentally?

>> Do you mean that it would be worse, or that it would be better but
>> still not good enough?
> Better but still not good enough.

Great.  Then let's try to do that.  I suggest you M-x report-emacs-bug
and request this change (so it gets a tracking number, and its
dedicated discussion).

> do agree that this situation is uncommon; it just strikes me that the
> mechanism currently in use is rather fragile if it "breaks" in such a
> situation.

I wonder what you mean by "break".

>> Another thing we could consider is to drop the automatic call to
>> package-initialize in lisp/startup.el (again, based on the idea that
>> this has now been made unnecessary by package--ensure-init-file).
> I am strongly in support of this

Great.  Then let's try to do that.  I suggest you M-x report-emacs-bug
and request this change (so it gets a tracking number, and its
dedicated discussion).

> unless it means that we will be more reluctant to eventually remove
> `package--ensure-init-file'.

I don't see why it would have such an effect.


        Stefan