From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Tromey Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: document package.el Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:13:51 -0600 Message-ID: References: <878w4g66xb.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1281389538 8242 80.91.229.12 (9 Aug 2010 21:32:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:32:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs discussions To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Aug 09 23:32:17 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OiZx9-0003E4-0H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:32:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48744 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OiZga-00044T-ER for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:15:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48101 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OiZg3-00029P-V9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:14:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OiZfO-0003IT-Ku for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:13:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24176) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OiZfO-0003IH-EG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:13:54 -0400 Original-Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o79LDrOV031623 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:13:53 -0400 Original-Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o79LDq8h032056; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:13:52 -0400 Original-Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o79LDp2q019670; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:13:52 -0400 Original-Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7B4A13781A0; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:13:51 -0600 (MDT) X-Attribution: Tom In-Reply-To: <878w4g66xb.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (Chong Yidong's message of "Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:06:24 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 10.5.11.21 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:128511 Archived-At: >>>>> "Chong" == Chong Yidong writes: I'll reply to the rest of the patch reviews later, whenever I can get some time to update the patch. Tom> + A multi-file package is just a @file{.tar} file. Chong> BTW, this is off-topic, but I've been meaning to ask why you don't use Chong> .tar.gz files. Is the bandwidth difference insignificant? I haven't tried to measure it. I wanted to have minimal dependencies on the user's side, so I didn't want to rely on a decompressor. With a recent enough Emacs, you don't even need a 'tar' program, due to tar-untar-buffer. Some sort of optional compression would be fine. It seems like this could be handled transparently by the URL package, though, in conjunction with a server that knew how to serve compressed files automatically. Tom