Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 17:32 +0300 schrieb Andrew Tropin: > > > Most other package managers seem to respect "infrastructure" > > > provided by package.el. > > I don't think that statement is well-supported by the data we have. > > Agree, that was an incorrect statement. I should have said something > like: there are some popular tools like use-package configuration > helper, Nix package manager, Spacemacs configuration framework, some > elisp archives and probably something else, which utilize and follow > package.el. Not all of them use package.el itself, but they follow > conventions and describe-package help command and some other work > correctly. Is package.el really so well supported by all these tools? I might concede, that some of them don't throw away the package.el blurb like guix does, but other than that, I think you'd have a hard time stuffing a random git repo from use-package into package.el. Am I missing something?
> > Why should we let ELPA dictate our layout? I have not even once > > tried customizing package.el for actual use since I got Guix, > > because the elpa importer is trivial. > > We don't have to. Actually, I'm very happy with the new (current) > layout we have right now. That's good :) > I would say I find the following use case very confusing for > newcomers: > - Install emacs package via Guix. > - Use built-in help C-h C-h, find C-h P. > - Get it to work for built-in packages, but not for packages > installed by Guix. > - Get frustrated. You mean Emacs newcomers? Tell me something new about the first-time Emacs experience :P > I think we could avoid this at least in two ways: > 1. Use elpa/ subdirectory. > 2. Keep current structure, set package-directory-list to .../site- > lisp instead of .../site-lisp/elpa by default. Neither sounds very pleasant, but does (2) even work? > > Thus we're not trying to keep in line with any specific package > > manager, we just need to make things work "with Emacs" in the sense > > that packages installed via Guix should have working autoloads and > > one should be able to (require ...) them. > > Yes, but at the same time I don't see reasons why not to implement > one of two options above. We can get both: working autoloads and > working built-in help function (+newcommers won't be so frustrated). Of course. The glue code for that would go into guix-emacs.el, just like our autoload glue. > Personally, I'm quite happy that packages got their own > subdirectories and I'm fully satisfied with current state of it, but > it would be cool if inexperienced users will be able to use at least > built-in help commands for packages out of the box without additional > configuration. > > Hope my original point is a little better worded now. Doing something in Emacs without configuration sounds like an oxymoron, but I get your point. At the same time, I think that this kind of change is a pretty large request (DPD has more than 100 lines not counting dependencies, it's not small and neat like guix-emacs.el). If you find a clever trick to make your troubles go away, do submit a patch, but don't let it rely on user setup (in particular, don't rely on "haha, the user always carries about the elpa subdirectory"). Regards, Leo
