Re: Installing binaries with package.el

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:39:15 -0500 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote: 

>> If Debian will keep track of package dependencies, and we are not so
>> worried about other platforms (expecting them to match Debian's
>> approach), and we're satisfied that their approach resolves the issues
>> I've brought up (OS package dependencies and dynload module/general
>> binary distribution), then it's a lot less important to have
>> dependencies on OS packages in ELPA packages or to provide any binaries
>> (the two ELPA features I've proposed so far).

SM> You mean "if we assume that dynload modules will be installed via apt/yum
SM> rather than via package.el"?

Right.

SM> Indeed, I expect that this will end up being fairly common (since even
SM> if you already have a C compiler installed, it's likely you'll need to
SM> have to install some libfoo-dev package to get the module to compile).

Exactly, plus it can be very platform-dependent at the C level...

>> If we agree on that, then ELPA packages of dynload modules only have to
>> support local compilation for developers.

SM> But I think that the case of non-developers installing via package.el
SM> should be considered important as well.  We probably won't be able to
SM> provide as smooth a solution for them as `apt-get` or `yum`, but they
SM> deserve some efforts on our part.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:52:49 +0100 Achim Gratz <address@hidden> wrote: 

AG> I simply don't think that wrapper scripts and/or compiling binaries is
AG> appropriate for ELPA packages, it just opens one big can of worms that I
AG> don't really want to deal with in any way.

Stefan, I think there's a disagreement there, and each side has a point.
I don't know the best way forward.

Ted