Re: Summary and next steps for (package-initialize)

[Nikolay Kudryavtsev]

> It's not clear that there is any shortcoming in Emacs internals.
The whole discussion is a proof that there is. All the practical 
solutions here are bad. Including mine.

> But you still haven't addressed the real problem, which is that when
> Emacs inserts `package-initialize' into the init-file, it usually does
> so incorrectly. 
I have addressed this before - "in case you a)don't use package.el and 
b)don't use any other package manager and c)don't suppress the proposed 
message manually, it's pretty safe to assume that you don't have much of 
init anyway and you're our intended target". We can add: d)you choose to 
do that insertion. When we combine abcd, such insertion would almost 
always improve users init. Won't fix other possible problems, but would 
still be an improvement.

Also, please note that such optional insertion is quite secondary to my 
proposal, just warning user without any interactive options is fine with 
me too.

P. S. I think that instead of using the phrase "second init-file" you 
should use "separate package.el config". Talking about a second init 
creates more confusion and resistance from other people, than necessary. 
Though I still feel that having a separate package.el config would not 
have been warranted even if it was the only alternative to the current 
dumb (package-initialize) insertion.

--
Best Regards,
Nikolay Kudryavtsev