Re: enable MELPA & Marmalade by defaul [was: mykie.el]

[Nic Ferrier]

Andy Moreton <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed 08 Jan 2014, Achim Gratz wrote:
>
>> Nic Ferrier writes:
>>> I said earlier in this thread that I thought recommending a package
>>> archive other than ELPA was a very bad idea. The licence issue is just
>>> one reason.
>>
>> Currently, if multiple package archives offer the same packages, then
>> the archive offering the highest version number wins (which is always
>> MELPA, based on how they construct their version numbers).  All other
>> issues aside, a user would reasonably expect that an installed package
>> should not switch archives on updates automatically and that it is
>> possible to specify which archive is considered a valid source (in
>> general and for specific packages).
>
> With multiple independent package archives, packages with the same name
> are not necessarily related in any way at all. This means that packages
> names should be qualified by the archive they were installed from.

I don't agree with that. 

With your proposal we would be moving away from the very simple
but effective system we have now into much more complex territory.

As can be seen from package stores like Debian, some people want to
upgrade a package from different stores and some people want to pin.

It's not as easy as just being able to say "let's do it only one way".


But again, we're getting away from the point. The point was should Emacs
distribute a pointer to Marmalade or MELPA.

I reiterate that as the maintainer of Marmalade, I don't think it is.


Nic Ferrier