[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: ELPA policy

From: Stephen Leake
Subject: Re: ELPA policy
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:23:00 -0600
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (windows-nt)

John Wiegley <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Large packages like CEDET should move outside of Emacs.git and into
>>> Elpa.git.
>> "Should" based on what? just the fact that it's large? I think we should
>> decide this stuff on a case by case basis. For example:
> I'm surprised you say this, Eli, because in another thread you agree that
> packages like this should be in Elpa, didn't you?
>>> If xref.el depends on CEDET, it would move to Elpa.git as well.
>> IMO, the exact opposite: if there are core features that we want to be in
>> Emacs no matter what, and those features depend on a package which could be
>> a candidate to move to ELPA, that package should NOT move to ELPA.
> Core should provide functionality along the lines of a "standard library" and
> a "standard environment", where having them in core is as much a statement
> about consistency of interface, as it is about universal availability of the
> functionality.

Right. Since CEDET provides lots of interesting infrastrucure, I assumed
it was part of the Emacs standard library.

But I also see no reason not to have two levels of "standard
infrastructure"; one in core Emacs, on in ELPA.

That said, moving CEDET out of core to ELPA can be seen as a demotion.
For example, I was assuming that the EDE package system should be
prefered over any package system that is in ELPA, precisely because it
is in Emacs git. So I was spending my time improving EDE, rather than
some other ELPA package.

That aspect should be considered.

In other emails, I've said "CEDET is a tarball package; in
Emacs git solely to be included in the tarball".

Is it fair to add "also because it is approved as part of the standard
Emacs library"?

> Since xref.el does not need to depend on CEDET, I don't see a reason why it
> should, causing CEDET to remain in core.

I would object to moving CEDET to ELPA git if it were not easy to
refactor the current dependency to still be provided by an ELPA package.

-- Stephe

reply via email to

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