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

[Andy Moreton]

On Mon 17 Oct 2016, John Wiegley wrote:

>>>>>> "PL" == Phillip Lord <address@hidden> writes:
>
> PL> I think it's decision time. I am happy to carry on a little further with
> PL> the package.el based approach that I have outlined, fixing the one
> PL> significant issue with it and then I will stop. If you don't want to go
> PL> this way, that's fine.
>
> At this time, I don't want to go "full package.el".  However, I'd like to
> include it, since it's key to how users interact with ELPA-based packages.  I
> think Eli said it best:
>
> EZ> We need to adapt package.el to the new needs. It was not written with
> EZ> these goals in mind, so it needs to learn new tricks. Throwing it away is
> EZ> not acceptable, but neither is blindly accepting its current assumptions,
> EZ> which were not designed for the use case we are discussing.
>
> So let's not move to "directory per package", but let's do support "properly
> upgrading a package that came with the distribution".

That goal seems much easier to achive if each ELPA-based package is
isolated in its own directory, and all dependencies from core-emacs to
such packages are removed (including autoloads).

    AndyM