[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: ELPA policy

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: ELPA policy
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2015 18:20:43 +0200

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Dmitry Gutov <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:15:28 +0200
> On 11/09/2015 06:05 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Nothing prevents us from making the same arrangements in the Emacs
> > repository as we have in ELPA, and then users could add the Emacs
> > repository to their list of sites that package.el knows about.
> Create yet another package archive? With a separate publishing mechanism?

Why not?  There are several already, no?

> > Besides, most core packages don't need any elaborate setup, you just
> > drop them in and restart Emacs.
> "Just drop them in" doesn't address the issue of package updates, not in 
> the slightest.

It does, for most of the core.  That's what you do each time you say
"git pull", I believe.

> >> There were different suggestions, with different degrees between "let's
> >> move Org and Gnus out" and "let's move everything out".
> >
> > I didn't see any.
> All right, then. Let me make one right now: let's move out Org, Gnus and 
> CEDET. And consider doing that with any other big codebase that's also 
> maintained separately (Calc comes to mind).
> There have been objections to doing that for each of these packages, but 
> there you go. Suggestion made.

It was made before -- that's the "let's move Org and Gnus out"
variant, to which I said I could easily agree.  And then there was the
"move everything" one, to which I object for the reasons stated.  What
I meant was that there was no 3rd variant, AFAIR.

reply via email to

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