Re: Proposal for 'package-isolate' command

[Thierry Volpiatto]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> Thierry Volpiatto <thievol@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Hello Philip,
>>
>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>>
>>> Thierry Volpiatto <thievol@posteo.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> No don't worry, helm will work in any cases, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, in that case I'd prefer to keep it the way it is.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, fair enough.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Mainly to avoid issues with packages that might place files in the
>>>>>>> configuration directory, which might hinder the reproduction of bugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, maybe, I don't have an example in mind though.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might not be the best example, but my package autocrypt generates a
>>>>> file in the `user-emacs-directory'.  If we don't use --init-directory,
>>>>> the existing file would be re-used.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, for such case it is easy to either rename the file temporarily to
>>>> foo_ori or foo_save or to set the variable handling the file (generally
>>>> it is not harcoded) to something else. But another issue is if your
>>>> isolated package needs the history file or tramp file or whatever file
>>>> ~/.emacs.d is handling; e.g. a package providing completion on history.
>>>> I still think it is more handy to reuse user-emacs-directory and its
>>>> elpa directory where the packages are already installed.
>>>
>>> How about this patch, that will use a temporary directory when
>>> `package-isolate' is invoked with a prefix argument (not sure what the
>>> default should be, I guess reusing `user-emacs-directory' is less
>>> surprising):
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Isn't these two loop the same? (save one loop)
>
> No, because that assumes that we are only interested in the first
> package descriptor in every package--alist entry, while there might be
> multiple.

Ah ok.

>>     (cl-loop for p in (cl-loop for p in (package--alist) append (cdr p))
>>       unless (package-built-in-p p)
>
> Also, do we want this or wouldn't it be useful to be able to force a
> built-in package being loaded?

Some packages seems to require a specific version of a package for their
dependency e.g. seq, by excluding it the package may not work correctly,
this is my understanding but I may be wrong. Also perhaps the package
e.g. seq is selected later when computing dependencies but maybe user
wants to select a particular version manually in the first place?

-- 
Thierry

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature