Re: Adding use-package to ELPA

[Philip Kaludercic]

chad <yandros@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:17 AM Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> As mentioned, the question is open whether or not the package should be
>> added to ELPA or not (I prefer adding it to ELPA, but I am biased).
>
> If you prefer adding it to ELPA as opposed to adding it to the core, could
> you expand a bit on why you prefer that? It seems remarkably stable, pretty
> amenable to external expansion, and apparently has all of the assignments
> lined up (I had thought this was still incomplete, personally), so I would
> expect it to be a good fit for core. That said, I haven't looked at the
> matter closely.

The main reason is that if the documentation is currently not optimal, I
think this is better tolerated when distributed via ELPA then when it is
distributed as part of Emacs itself, where I'd expect higher standards.

The less concrete reason is tied to me being the maintainer of a
alternative package (setup on ELPA), that takes a different approach to
the issue of a configuration macro.  As you can imagine, I prefer it
over `use-package', that I see as having inconsistencies and
idiosyncrasies, that should be addressed if it were added to the core.

Then again, I understand that being a very popular package in it's
current form, so slimming it down or changing the default behaviour
would not be applicable either.  Yet for a lot of people who already do
use or want to use `use-package', having it available OOTB would be
definitive advantage.  But then again, couldn't this be said for a
number of packages?

In the end, I didn't ask the question because I already knew what the
answer is, but because I was honestly interested in hearing different
perspectives.

-- 
        Philip Kaludercic