On 06/24/2015 07:31 AM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 24 June 2015 at 08:01, Jan Synacek wrote:
Managing Emacs packages by the distribution makes, IMHO, no sense at
all. Users can easily manage the packages themselves via Emacs'
package.el user interface.
Well, that's the way I'm leaning too. B
Jonathan Underwood writes:
> On 24 June 2015 at 08:01, Jan Synacek wrote:
>> Jonathan Underwood writes:
>>> So, I am not really sure what a good way forward is at this point.
>>> Certainly package.el could be extended to help us out in some ways,
>>> such as having a notion of "installed and ava
On 24 June 2015 at 08:01, Jan Synacek wrote:
> Jonathan Underwood writes:
>> The Emacs package manager installs these add-on modules in the user's
>> own directory by default, but it can also install them in a system
>> wide directory.
>
> If you run Emacs as a regular user, you can install packa
Jonathan Underwood writes:
> Hi,
>
> So, while filing a bunch of bugs against packages not complying with
> the Emacs add-on packaging guidelines, I started to think about the
> state of add-ons for Emacs [1].
>
> Since those guidelines were put in place, Emacs has grown its own
> package manager
On 23 Jun 2015 20:06, "Neal Becker" wrote:
>
> The case I just fixed is a bit different - it's not something that comes
> from elpa, melpa, etc., but is an add-on that was just a contributed part
> that ships with mercurial. Probably many cases of emacs-foo fedora
packages
> are like this.
>
Oh,
The case I just fixed is a bit different - it's not something that comes
from elpa, melpa, etc., but is an add-on that was just a contributed part
that ships with mercurial. Probably many cases of emacs-foo fedora packages
are like this.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
htt
