Re: CVS is the `released version'

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Ken Manheimer wrote:

> (2) is the tricky bit.  the situation would be simplest if the update
> system is contrived to only allow the entire collection of packages to
> be updated at as a whole.  this would mean that package committers
> need worry only about interoperation with the current version of other
> packages, not with the diversity available.  ("current" would be a
> gradually moving target, but at least there would be only one target
> at any moment.)  what this would amount to is a finer incremental
> release mechanism for the lisp directory, as a whole.  this would be
> very like someone following emacs development via the CVS head, with
> the addition that the releases could be better controlled to ensure
> coherence/integrity, rather than being wherever checkins happen to be.


I think this touches the most important point of a package system. There 
must be something that can assure that the package to download fits on 
the users system. Otherwise a package system may create a disaster.

For more complicated packages the alternative is otherwise to download 
the whole package. And in my opinion a package system is propably of 
most value if it assists in installing complicated packages.

It is quite simple to follow instructions to install single elisp files. 
I am not sure that a package system is really needed there. In contrast 
it may be very frustrating for a user getting the files in a package out 
of sync. A good package system can be a very good help to avoid that the 
package parts get out of sync.

So please, do not add a package system that can only handle single files 
and not their interdependencies.