Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underw...@gmail.com> writes: > On 24 June 2015 at 08:01, Jan Synacek <jsyna...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underw...@gmail.com> 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 available but not active". >>> But is it worth the effort? >> >> In my opinion, no. I will repeat myself: Emacs packages should be left >> for users to install, since it's very easy to do, and they can choose >> From stable/development versions.
You could, but there's a difference. The python/perl packages (libraries) can easily turn out to be a mess, because they are part of a development environment. It also makes much more sense (to me, at least) to have them installed system-wide. (Not sure if my explanation is clear enough.) > OK, thanks for your thoughts, very helpful. I'm glad I could help. Cheers, -- Jan Synacek Software Engineer, Red Hat
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
