Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: > The version of package manager that people most likely use today always > choses the latest version from _any_ archive available when you update. > You can't tell it to consider some archive more authoritative than > another or that it should stick with whatever source archive the package > was originally installed from.
Of course. My explanation was worded poorly, because instead of sleeping I was wasting my time supporting someone else's request to be able to get the latest version of Org via ELPA. >> The current daily builds are here: > […] > > That sort of contorsionist gymnastics defeats the whole point of having > a package manager in the first place. If every package would have to do > that we'd all end up juggling dozens of archives in our config files. The guidance for using Org via ELPA is already to "add the Orgmode.org/elpa archive" (paraphrased). Changing that to "add Orgmode.org/elpa-stable for the stable version or Orgmode.org/elpa-unstable for the bleeding edge version" is suddenly contortionist gymnastics? Really? Compared to using git? >> If the next version of Emacs breaks Org out of core into the GNU ELPA >> package archive, things can be even easier: Keep the stable version in >> the GNU package archive, and keep the unstable version in the archive on >> the orgmode.org server. > > I wouldn't hold my breath. At the moment that mechanism by which to do > that is certainly not in place and there's no agreement on what it > should look like. Agreement or not, something will be done. Already the mechanisms are in place that put the maint version in both locations. The biggest obstacle I to this that I see is that developers tend to hate the package manager and love git. >> (And personally, I think the "contrib" parts should either be merged >> into the core or split into separate packages, but that's another can of >> worms.) > > if you want to move things into core, clean those files up, create tests > and get the copyrights assignmed to the FSF by their authors and propose > their inclusion. > > If you want separate packages, I'm quite certain that this needs further > modifications at least to some of the files. The current mode of > operation is that they should be compiled together with the rest of Org > and no checks are made if they work if installed sepaerately. Some of > them likely do, others probably not. Yes, either choice would be an effort. However, there is currently the problem that some packages depend on org, and others on org-plus-contrib, which cause both to be installed (without some controtionist gymnastics). IMHO, the Org package at Orgmode.org/elpa should either always include contrib, as the git repository does, or split the contrib part into an org-contrib package that depends on org. All the best, Terry -- T.F. Torrey
