On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Tom Tromey
<address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Eilert <address@hidden> writes:
Stephen> With a slightly improved system, we could have
Stephen> dependencies. This could make easier to solve the
Stephen> aforementioned problem of gathering multiple, independent
Stephen> packages from different sources.
Just FYI -- package.el (the elisp side of ELPA) does handle dependencies.
:-)
It appears I have overlooked that. Nice to know.
Stephen> Does anyone see a major flaw in a system like that? Or is it
Stephen> a matter of "show me the code and I'll comment"? ELPA could
Stephen> be the starting point.
There was a discussion a while ago on this list. RMS wanted to
restrict the available packages to those which had been assigned to
the FSF, but I did not agree with that.
Meh. Just set up a repository maintained by the FSF by default and leave the ability to add others, at the user's discretion. It won't prevent anything that isn't already being done, as it is just for convenience.
I would reconsider my position if the Emacs maintainers were
interested -- I think it would be useful to Emacs users if there were
a simple, standard way to install and activate packages.
Definitely. Grouping modules together (instead of all over the web at some guy's personal homepage) would be just an added bonus.
However, this would still not help you directly, because I think some
of the packages you want are not assigned. So, you would have to
solve that problem as well.
One problem at a time ;)
--Stephen
programmer, n:
A red eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with inanimate monsters.