[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Fixing package-initialize, adding early init file

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixing package-initialize, adding early init file
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:22:37 +0300

> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:15:03 -0400
> From: Mark Oteiza <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>,
>       address@hidden
> On 25/09/17 at 10:16pm, Radon Rosborough wrote:
> > > I haven't seen one place where the problem_s_ involved have been
> > > clearly articulated
> > 
> > Unless by "problems involved" you meant more generally, for all the
> > different proposals? That is exactly what [2] was intended to cover;
> > could you clarify what exactly you would like articulated that hasn't
> > been already?
> I meant more explicitly--each of these use cases should be documented
> with examples.  While the manual in its current state does explain
> things, it can be better.

It definitely can, but that's a separate issue, I think.  And we
cannot finalize the documentation before we finalize the code.

> > Could you clarify what you mean by this? This patch has the effect
> > that users can put package configuration right into their init-file,
> > or use Custom to achieve the same, without having to know anything
> > about the package system.
> At the cost of users who customize package.el and don't need another
> init file.

Do those users have a "fire escape"?  If they don't, I agree we should
provide one.  Otherwise, I expect such users to be knowledgeable
enough to work around these changes with minimal hassle.

reply via email to

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