[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS is the `released version'

From: Tom Tromey
Subject: Re: CVS is the `released version'
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:50:29 -0600
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux)

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

Stefan> I think tht supporting several "packages" inside a single
Stefan> tarball will complicate matters significantly.  OTOH, some
Stefan> packages include other packages for the user's
Stefan> (in)convenience, e.g. ProofGeneral includes a copy of X-Symbol
Stefan> in its tarball, so package.el somehow do something intelligent
Stefan> in such cases.  Maybe it can recognize that it's in a
Stefan> dubdirectory of its own and move it out or something like
Stefan> that.

Yeah -- I considered a lot of different scenarios when initially
writing package.el.  Not just things like the above but also things
like anti-dependencies, version dependency relations other than ">=",
elisp in subdirectories, optionally compiled elisp, optional
dependencies, sub-packages, ...

In the end I decided to start with something simple and see how that
worked out.  I don't know about ProofGeneral, but my initial reaction
here would be to try to convince them to package X-Symbol as a
separate package.

In general I think putting dependencies into a package like this is a
reaction to the lack of any sort of extension management in Emacs.  In
the current state of affairs it looks more convenient for users to do
this... but this is part of what I'd like to change.

I'm certainly not averse to adding features, but I'd prefer to push
the KISS approach as long as possible.

For cases like ProofGeneral, they could make one set of packages for
ELPA and another for general ("old school") download.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]