[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages
From: |
joakim |
Subject: |
Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages |
Date: |
Thu, 06 Nov 2014 21:11:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> From: Tassilo Horn <address@hidden>
>> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:30:08 +0100
>> Cc: address@hidden
>>
>> What I don't understand is why we don't move org, gnus, and other
>> built-in packages which aren't "super-core" (i.e., not everybody
>> needs them) from emacs.git to elpa.git? Then all points above still
>> apply, and emacs releases are a bit more lightweight.
>
> There's no direct relation between moving packages between
> repositories and excluding them from the release tarballs. We can
> have one, but not the other.
>
> What is the advantage of having a more lightweight tarball? Disk
> space is no longer at premium, and Emacs is a relatively small package
> by modern standards.
>
>> I mean, for fast-evolving packages like org and company, if emacs
>> 25.1 bundles version X, the next day version X+1 is available from
>> ELPA anyway.
>
> Yes, but then installing a tarball gives me Org and Gnus etc., even if
> they are slightly outdated. If we go your way, I don't have them at
> all, and need a live, reliable, and uncensored network connection to
> get them; until I do, my Emacs is crippled or might not even start at
> all. That's a net loss.
>
> When I install XEmacs, I always want the "sumo" package, for that very
> reason.
>
>> The only downside I can see is that users upgrading from Emacs 24 to 25
>> might get startup errors because formerly built-in packages aren't
>> anymore. But that can be documented easily:
>>
>> If you used the built-in org-mode version in Emacs < 25, do
>>
>> 1. emacs -Q
>> 2. M-x package-install RET org RET
>> 3. Now you can restart emacs without -Q
>
> There are only disadvantages here. You add conditions that, if they
> are not satisfied, will interfere with the upgrade. It's a nuisance
> for no good reason.
>
+1 for Eli:s entire post from me! Theres no real point in a slimmed
release tarball, and if you still want one, you could still make one
separately from the main release tarball.
--
Joakim Verona
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, (continued)
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Tassilo Horn, 2014/11/06
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Jonathan Leech-Pepin, 2014/11/06
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/06
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages,
joakim <=
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Nic Ferrier, 2014/11/07
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Tassilo Horn, 2014/11/06
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, David Engster, 2014/11/06
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/06
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Stephen Leake, 2014/11/06
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, David Engster, 2014/11/06
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Stephen Leake, 2014/11/08
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/08
- Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/11/06
Re: Bundling GNU ELPA packages, Achim Gratz, 2014/11/06