Re: [Emacs-diffs] feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added

[Phillip Lord]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> PL> I'm wondering on what basis we would make the distinction between core and
> PL> tarball.  Potential usefulness, longevity, quality etc?
>> This point has yet to be determined. I think that for now it will remain a
>> maintainer decision, based on feedback from the developers here. I don't 
>> think
>> it's useful to define a "general principle" to make the decision for us, yet.
>> There aren't that many packages signed over to the FSF, after all.
>
> [...]
>
>> stream.el is something that I think would be a candidate for "core ELPA": It
>> fits the above criteria, but adds a fourth:
>>
>>   4. We'd like for other core Emacs packages to be able to use it.
>
> I think this answers Phillip's question: the main difference is whether
> Emacs's packages can (and/or do) depend on it.
>
> There are several gradations of dependency, of course:
>
> - Can src/emacs be dumped without that package?
> - Can all of lisp/**/*.elc be built without that package?
> - Can all of lisp/**/*.el be used without that package?
>
> If all three answers are yes, then it doesn't need to be "core".
> If all three are no, then it definitely needs to be "core".
> Between the two, well, ...


I guess, the decision is more "whether we can reasonable expect other
packages to depend on it" -- stream.el, being new, is not going to
depended on by anything in core.

You'll note, though, that package.el format packages can, and do,
depend on each other. It's just that the dependency mechanism is
slightly different: package.el format packages need an additional line
in the header. Core packages just need a require (or nothing at all for
autoloads).

Phil