[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Core ELPA was: Testing fontification, indentation, and buffer manipu

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: Core ELPA was: Testing fontification, indentation, and buffer manipulation
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 22:27:39 -0500

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > That avoids the problem I thought I saw, but what is the purpose?  I
  > > thought the idea of ELPA is that a user would get ELPA packages when perse
  > > wants them -- they would not be preloaded.

  > Perhaps. An alternative, though, would be to reduce the size of Emacs as
  > a monolithic entity and have many more packages that are distributed via
  > ELPA. At the moment, the slow release cycle of Emacs means that many
  > packages are only updated on a two yearly basis.

I don't see how one is an alternative to the other.  They seem
to be talking about two different questions, both about ELPA
but not the same.

  > > Is this a way of handling a few packages that are included in Emacs
  > > distros, if we maintain them in ELPA?  It makes a kind of sense for
  > > that case, but I would expect that those testing and making Emacs
  > > releases would need more control over which versions of packages are
  > > included in the release.

  > Yes, although as I say, with the intention of enabling more packages to
  > be developed in this way. I'm not sure how many packages are currently
  > included in both repos (org and seq for sure).

How many there will be is a different question.  The question at hand
is how to handle merging them into Emacs and when.

I think that should be done by explicit command, not automatically or
spontaneously, and not as part of building Emacs.

  > > If installing Emacs doesn't require a local copy of ELPA, building
  > > Emacs should not need one.

  > Building Emacs requires lots of things that installing does not.

I think you have changed the subject,
but since what you said is very general, I can't be sure.

What sort of things do you mean?

  > I think this is wrong. Having stuff which is not really source (i.e. it
  > is not the prefered location for editing)

It is source code, no matter where it is located.  It is source code
even when it is a copy the user has downloaded.

Pastiching our definition of source code could be a good joke, but it
is not a serious argument for a decision about development methods.

Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org, https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

reply via email to

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