From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Problem exporting code Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:49:14 +0100 Message-ID: <87wqv5irnp.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87libnmdjx.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87pq0zkmrt.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55254) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxYbj-0002mL-GJ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:49:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxYbh-0004JO-4Z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:49:23 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:51525) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TxYbg-0004Iv-RY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:49:21 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hq4so7859992wib.1 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:49:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (Thomas S. Dye's message of "Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:01:26 -1000") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: "Thomas S. Dye" Cc: Ken Williams , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Thomas and all, tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes: > Ken Williams writes: > >>> I've been using this: >>> - http://vgoulet.act.ulaval.ca/en/emacs/mac/ Thanks for the pointer, I was not aware of this distribution. > Interesting, this Emacs distribution removed Org a few days ago. This is a wrong move. Also, the NEWS entry in http://vgoulet.act.ulaval.ca/pub/emacs/NEWS-mac suggests that Org's maintainers are recommending to install Org as an external package, which is a false statement too. I just wrote to Vincent asking for more details and offering to help to ease his life as a maintainer for this Emacs distribution. > I'm not > certain why the distributor refers to this as "a rather drastic > measure." From my perspective as a user, whose interests required using > the git version of Org from the beginning, the Emacs distribution of Org > has been nothing but trouble, leading to perplexing (for me) problems > with mixed installs that I would rather have avoided. The distribution of Org as a built-in package in Emacs is *not* the problem. Installing Org through git or through .tar.gz/.zip on top of the Emacs distribution does not create problems if you follow the instructions in the manual -- I made a special effort to simplify them. The real problem is the ELPA distribution, and this problem is due to the package system not being clever enough to handle both a pre-built and a add-on package in all configs. So I'm seriously questioning the value of having Org as an ELPA package and I'm thinking of removing this possibility until Emacs package install is fixed (Achim is working on this, but it looks like the change will not be in Emacs anytime soon.) > I've enjoyed reading the mailing list for the last two or three years > and in that time can only remember a few times that the Org that ships > with Emacs was recommended. Typically, advice on the list recommends > using the git version, instead. The pre-built version is not recommended because it does not need to be -- it is pre-built :) When people write to the list, I recommend them to use the latest .tar.gz/.zip or the Git version because this version often fix the bug they are suffering from. > Installation of the git version is *easy* now, even for someone with my > limited skills. Yes, and installing the .tar.gz/.zip file is even easier! > I didn't have any luck with the ELPA version when it > first came out, but the ELPA system works great and it seems like an > ideal channel to distribute Org. So, even a user like me has very little > difficulty using a non-Emacs version of Org. There are many things I don't like with the current packaging system: - The message when downloading is confusing ("package contacting..."). - AFAIK users don't have the choice but to have the .el files compiled, which will make backtraces unreadable for bug reporters. Also, if Org is not in Emacs anymore, users will not be able to add (org-agenda ...) in their .emacs.el -- they will have to initialize the package system in .emacs.el before they can call Org functions. *We* will have to tell them... > I'm sure there are reasons for wanting Org to be distributed with Emacs. > Would it be OK for me to ask on the list what they are? I don't have figures, but I think Emacs is the first "channel" through wich people happen to discover Org. It is advertized on the Emacs homepage, it is in the Emacs manuals, etc. Also, I consider outline.el to be completely unusable, and Org is first an enhanced version of it, which Emacs strongly needs. I plan to push so that files in Emacs use org.el when they use outline.el. I understand this might be tempting to remove Org from Emacs if it causes installation problems... tempting for long-time power users who know how to install it, tempting for maintainers who don't want to deal with the (heavy) burden of sync'ing with Emacs, and tempting for Emacs maintainers who don't want such a big module in the codebase... but this would be a wrong move. The right thing to do is to simplify Org so that requiring org.el does not take too long, and so that installing it on top of a pre-built install does not create problems. If removing the ELPA channel is the way to go temporarily, let's think about it seriously! All best, -- Bastien