Re: Friendly discussion about (package-initialize)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Radon Rosborough <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 20:32:59 -0700
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> > [ This file should be basically empty (tho could contain lots of
> > comments. ]
> 
> That can be debated later. At the minimum, though, it would have to
> contain a (package-initialize), with lots of accompanying comments to
> explain what it's doing there and where you should put your code to
> configure packages.

Can someone explain, preferably in concise form, why are we having
this discussion about in which file to have the call to
package-initialize, given that startup.el already calls that function
(as IMO it should)?

As you might guess, I don't use package.el, but this issue, which to
my opinion seems to be already solved The Right Way, continues to
generate such prolonged discussions that I wonder where did we make
the wrong turn with package.el.

Thanks.