Re: Integrating package.el

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:14:14 -0700 Tom Tromey <address@hidden> wrote: 

Tom> Right now package.el handles the Emacs install tree in a hacky way
Tom> and ignores site-lisp entirely.

OK, I hope you and Phil have some ideas.  I don't know much about this.

Tom> I agree with the other posters who recommend that [post-install
Tom> configuration] be done in Gnus, not as something related to
Tom> package.el.

I would like to at least show a message or offer a prompt (answering 'y'
launches the assistant), is that possible?  If not that's OK.

Ted> I'd actually like both: the Emacs-hosted version is "Emacs-supported
Ted> Gnus" while the ELPA versions are "bleeding-edge Gnus from CVS" and
Ted> "latest Gnus release."  The last one is usually but not always
Ted> synchronized with the Emacs release; I'll need to ask the other Gnus
Ted> developers what they think.  At least two Gnus versions in package.el
Ted> make sense in any case.

Tom> package.el doesn't support this at the moment.

Tom> Thanks for bringing this up, though.  I think it is pretty important to
Tom> flush out all these use cases.

Tom> I can think of a couple solutions to this problem.

Tom> One would be to somehow let users select different package versions.
Tom> Normally, though, users don't actually want this -- when a new version
Tom> is released, ordinarily all the old ones are obsolete.

This is probably too confusing for most users.

Tom> Another solution would be to have two repositories, one for stable
Tom> packages and one for experimental.  This wouldn't require any changes to
Tom> package.el.

This works for me.  We're talking now about the proposed FSF supported
repository (part of Emacs), not about an ELPA "stable" repository,
right?  The bleeding-edge Gnus can live in the external ELPA archive
that's currently live, and perhaps can move to the FSF unsupported
repository we discussed earlier (you and Phil may want different names
for the repositories).

I think RMS, Stefan, Reiner, and you and Phil need to agree on the setup
and where things will live.  Jonas will probably have an opinion as
well.  I can do the mechanical work for packaging Gnus but can't make
this kind of policy decision.  Whatever the decision, Gnus is a good
test case because of its complexity and baggage[1].

Ted

[1] by "baggage" I mean that Gnus has a handbag, two purses, six
wallets, a rolling suitcase, a laundry basket, and also stuffs things in
its socks "just in case." :)