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

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

EZ> But in any case, having a separate sub-directory for every package, like
EZ> what we have on ELPA, makes very little sense for a structure distributed
EZ> in a release tarball. You'd have many dozens of subdirectories, each one
EZ> with one or a handful of files.

+1

It also occurred to me that we don't need a "mapping" file: We can impose the
constraint that any ELPA package to be included in the distribution use,
within its package, the same directory layout it would like overlaid into the
distribution.

I don't see why this issue is generating so much discussion. We've decided
we're not changing the directory structure for now. Supporting a single layout
in the final tarball is not hard. Why the push to cater to package.el?

If a user installs Emacs from the tarball, and then wishes to use Org-mode
From ELPA rather than the distribution, they'll do what they'd do today: Use
M-x package-install to install a newer version of Org-mode in their package
directory, shadowing the Org-mode we included in the distribution.

As far as I can tell, the only thing we need to support tarball ELPA is file
containing a list of packages, and an addition to "make dist" that copies
these packages into the distribution directory when building the tarball. Or
am I missing something?

-- 
John Wiegley                  GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com                          60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature