From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: joakim@verona.se Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 21:11:46 +0100 Message-ID: References: <878ujowbnh.fsf@thinkpad-t440p.tsdh.org> <87sihwm8jj.fsf@thinkpad-t440p.tsdh.org> <83389wt8l8.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1415304780 1544 80.91.229.3 (6 Nov 2014 20:13:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 20:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Tassilo Horn To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 06 21:12:51 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XmTQJ-0001Vx-1p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 21:12:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55876 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XmTQI-0002i2-6Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:12:50 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45197) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XmTPv-0002h3-8v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:12:33 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XmTPo-0003sS-Km for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:12:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mx2.bahnhof.se ([213.80.101.12]:19243) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XmTPh-0003l5-Iv; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 15:12:13 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (mf.bahnhof.se [213.80.101.20]) by mx2-reinject (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F56940F52; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:12:12 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at bahnhof.se (MF4) Original-Received: from mf4.bahnhof.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mf4.bahnhof.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Id03n55JI9zZ; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:12:03 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mta.verona.se (h-235-102.a149.priv.bahnhof.se [85.24.235.102]) by mf4.bahnhof.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2353D782F; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:12:02 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta.verona.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B889151DE26; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 20:12:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at verona.se Original-Received: from mta.verona.se ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (exodia.verona.se [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MoZjaidtLqyv; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:11:46 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from exodia.verona.se (www.verona.se [192.168.200.15]) by mta.verona.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1D551DEB9; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:11:46 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <83389wt8l8.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 06 Nov 2014 21:47:15 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 213.80.101.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:176485 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Tassilo Horn >> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:30:08 +0100 >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> What I don't understand is why we don't move org, gnus, and other >> built-in packages which aren't "super-core" (i.e., not everybody >> needs them) from emacs.git to elpa.git? Then all points above still >> apply, and emacs releases are a bit more lightweight. > > There's no direct relation between moving packages between > repositories and excluding them from the release tarballs. We can > have one, but not the other. > > What is the advantage of having a more lightweight tarball? Disk > space is no longer at premium, and Emacs is a relatively small package > by modern standards. > >> I mean, for fast-evolving packages like org and company, if emacs >> 25.1 bundles version X, the next day version X+1 is available from >> ELPA anyway. > > Yes, but then installing a tarball gives me Org and Gnus etc., even if > they are slightly outdated. If we go your way, I don't have them at > all, and need a live, reliable, and uncensored network connection to > get them; until I do, my Emacs is crippled or might not even start at > all. That's a net loss. > > When I install XEmacs, I always want the "sumo" package, for that very > reason. > >> The only downside I can see is that users upgrading from Emacs 24 to 25 >> might get startup errors because formerly built-in packages aren't >> anymore. But that can be documented easily: >> >> If you used the built-in org-mode version in Emacs < 25, do >> >> 1. emacs -Q >> 2. M-x package-install RET org RET >> 3. Now you can restart emacs without -Q > > There are only disadvantages here. You add conditions that, if they > are not satisfied, will interfere with the upgrade. It's a nuisance > for no good reason. > +1 for Eli:s entire post from me! Theres no real point in a slimmed release tarball, and if you still want one, you could still make one separately from the main release tarball. -- Joakim Verona