Re: package and testing rant (was Re: package.el, auto-installation, and auto-removal)

[Nic Ferrier]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> I don't think I can be "wrong" there, tho you may disagree with the
> importance of some of my wishes: there has to be a source somewhere, and
> I wish it to be available at a single place (which is a currently single
> Git repository but could be a tree of repositories, as long as I can
> "make pull" and get them all, and as long as they're on gnu.org property
> to remind authors that they shouldn't be pushing stuff there that
> doesn't have proper copyright).

And if they were savannah gnu projects that would be achieved without
the over centralization you have now.

The centralization isn't really a problem right now you think. But I bet
it is. You're making people work inside a source tree that doesn't
belong to them and you're constraining the technical content they put
there.

You're also inviting people to break the Makefile because they want
their own build.

You're also inviting people to check in non-working code.

You might say "these things have not happened yet". But that's because
there are very few ELPA authors so far. Maybe one of the reasons there
are so few ELPA authors is that it's weird.


>> - you constrain packages to have source that is managed only by the
>>   elpa.git makefile
>
> I could live with a secondary archive of "pre-built" thingies so that
> the build can be done externally.

I think that's my main point. There should be a package archive where
authors send their "done" packages.

But I also think you are wrong about requiring everyone to use one
source archive. Just because you want one place where the source
is. I've heard no good justification for that.


>> I don't understand why you don't do the obvious thing that nearly every
>> packaging system does and accept the need for specifically made
>> artifacts.
>
> I don't know what you mean,

I mean: You're doing something very weird. Why?

Weird can be good if you've got a good reason. If you haven't it's just
weird.


Nic