Re: Adding use-package to ELPA

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> "PK" == Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

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

My only desire is the least inertia for users. Personally, I'd prefer it if
setup, leaf and use-package were all in core, and let the user decide which
one they wish to require at startup time. These types of packages are a bit
special, because -- since they configure everything else -- it's best if they
need the least configuration to become available. But I also understand that
we tend to pick "a way" when something goes into core, and this results in
maintainers having to make a choice of one over the other.

At the moment my only compelling evidence for use-package I find is its
current ubiquity. Most Emacs package I come across on GitHub these days offer
a use-package form for configuration. It would be nice if these could be
copied and pasted into one's .emacs with an absolute minimum of extra fuss.

But I'm not asserting that use-package is the best solution to the underlying
problem. I am interested to know more about the idiosyncrasies you've found.
The core of use-package has become highly user-configurable, so maybe it's a
problem that can be changed.

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2