|
From: | Nikolay Kudryavtsev |
Subject: | Re: Interoperation between package managers |
Date: | Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:31:14 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 |
With a properly structured API there would be no difference between a function provided by a package manager and something you just hacked together. As such this question would be left to the user. An advantage for having it on this level would be that you can do such configuration in a uniform way regardless of the package manager you use.Why not just say it is the responsibility of the package manager to let the user say which packages it is to make available and which packages it is to leave for another package manager?
Yes, seems like it would require restructuring autoloading, but the change would probably be backwards compatible.Would this require a restructuring of how autoloading works in general?
I don't see how it wouldn't be. We're asking "hey, can anyone load cool.el?" Package.el would answer no, since cool.el is not installed, straight.el would answer yes. And if it decides to download cool.el, it's entirely a decision left to it and how it's configured. This of course opens a possible attack angle of me having (require 'malevolent-el) somewhere in my legit code.Another thing I worry about is whether this is the right abstraction for package managers that operate in different ways than package.el.
-- Best Regards, Nikolay Kudryavtsev
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |