Re: feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added

[Andy Moreton]

On Fri 14 Oct 2016, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Andy Moreton <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:51:15 +0100
>> 
>> >> ~/.emacs.d/elpa/org/org
>> >> ~/.emacs.d/elpa/org/etc/ORG-NEWS
>> >> ~/.emacs.d/elpa/org/org.el
>> >> 
>> >> So, org-mode has to support two independent directory layouts.
>> >
>> > But Org already supports those two formats.  We don't require Org to
>> > do anything that it doesn't already do.  So staying with the current
>> > structure of lisp/ in the Emacs tree doesn't add any new requirements.
>> 
>> But that would do nothing to reduce the unnecessary and duplicated
>> packaging work.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what duplicated work you have in mind.  Org
> developers will still put Org on ELPA in the same directory structure
> they do now.  When Org is imported into Emacs, as part of building a
> release tarball or as part of building from the repository, each file
> will be put in its natural place in the Emacs source tree, either by
> package.el or by some other means, and will replace any previous Org
> files, if there were such.

It natural place in the emacs source tree should be the exact layout used
for ELPA, without any rearrangement. You proposal requires rearranging
the sources for the convenience of the few emacs develoeprs rather than
the manu emacs users. I do not think that is the right approach.

>> Keeping each package in ELPA format ensures that replacing the package
>> can be done easily, as everything is isolated in a single directory.
>
> I see no particular difficulties in putting several files into several
> directories, software can and does do that all the time.  It's not
> like we will be asking users to do this manually.

It is a pointless rearrangement from the package format, and makes emacs
core needlessly different from the package distribution. Bundling with
emacs core or distributing separately via ELPA should only concern how a
package is delivered, but should not change its content or layout.

>> There are many more users of emacs than developers, so the design
>> should be aimed at utility and convenience for users.
>
> That's the main motivation for my proposal, indeed.

Then you have lost me, as your proposal in this thread seems to be to
keeo the existing emacs directory structure, and make the layout of
packages bundled with emacs be different from the layout of the same
packages in ELPA.

The existing emacs source tree directory structure is sensible for a
monolithic project. However the whole idea here is to move away from a
monolithic structure, so the source tree contains only the emacs
core. Unmodified ELPA packages are imported into a packages directory
to be bundled for distribution.

    AndyM