[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: CVS is the `released version'

From: Lennart Borgman (gmail)
Subject: Re: CVS is the `released version'
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 23:24:24 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Ken Manheimer wrote:

(2) is the tricky bit.  the situation would be simplest if the update
system is contrived to only allow the entire collection of packages to
be updated at as a whole.  this would mean that package committers
need worry only about interoperation with the current version of other
packages, not with the diversity available.  ("current" would be a
gradually moving target, but at least there would be only one target
at any moment.)  what this would amount to is a finer incremental
release mechanism for the lisp directory, as a whole.  this would be
very like someone following emacs development via the CVS head, with
the addition that the releases could be better controlled to ensure
coherence/integrity, rather than being wherever checkins happen to be.

I think this touches the most important point of a package system. There must be something that can assure that the package to download fits on the users system. Otherwise a package system may create a disaster.

For more complicated packages the alternative is otherwise to download the whole package. And in my opinion a package system is propably of most value if it assists in installing complicated packages.

It is quite simple to follow instructions to install single elisp files. I am not sure that a package system is really needed there. In contrast it may be very frustrating for a user getting the files in a package out of sync. A good package system can be a very good help to avoid that the package parts get out of sync.

So please, do not add a package system that can only handle single files and not their interdependencies.

reply via email to

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