Re: feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added

[Alain Schneble]

Achim Gratz <address@hidden> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> I don't see why restarting won't be a solution.  If load-path was
>> re-arranged to put the latest version of a package first, and the
>> package's autoloads are on a file that has been regenerated, what else
>> is missing to make restart the correct solution?
>
> You are missing that the order in which all these things happen becomes
> important.  The newer autoload can only shadow the old one if it's
> processed _before_, likewise initializing other Emacs packages might
> inadvertently pull in old autoloads or definitions before things have
> been rearranged by package.el.  This is not hypothetical, all of that
> has already happened and users have suffered from it.  When they report
> the resulting symptoms it is extremely difficult to tease out what
> exactly happened, in which order and why, so it also wastes the time of
> those folks who want to help them.

Of course.  The order of directories in load path is always relevant.
Whatever structure we choose.

>> I think making such a change incrementally is worse than doing it at
>> once, as far as the directory structure is concerned.  We don't want
>> to change the directory structure several times, ideally not even
>> once.  But if some change is required, it should be done in one go, so
>> we need to decide on the structure up front.
>
> I've said it before and I will say it again just this one time: If Emacs
> takes packetization of the core seriously, then the "hard core" should
> contain just the stuff that is needed for bootstrapping Emacs.

That has nothing to do with the directory layout.  This is possible if
we keep the ./lisp directory layout.

> Everything else should be a package.  Single-file packages would live in
> one directory together, and multi-file packages would be in their own
> directory each.

That will be more or less what will be mostly the case if we keep the
./lisp directory layout.

Alain