Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
On So, 2014-11-23 at 07:32 -0500, Daniel Feenberg wrote: On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: In that light and as the ports maintainer of math/ess, the Emacs speaks statistics R-mode of emacs, I am asking myself specifically whether I add any real benefit in maintaining math/ess. More generally, I am interested in community answers as to whether it is really useful to maintain Emacs-extension-packages in ports. As a non-Emacs user, can I raise some questions that should be asked every time a service/feature is withdrawn? If you stop maintaining math/ess, does it go away, or merely stop improving? I think eventually math/ess would be retired on go away. Emacs package installation is available since Emacs 24 and I believe emacs23 is retired as of 19th November this year. Does the Emacs package system support the same versions of Emacs that you support in math/ess? I have the impression they are more up to date. Latest MELPA package is from the 14th (http://melpa.org/#/ess). If a user upgrades FreeBSD will he lose what he has unless he converts to the new Emacs package system? Emacs packages are more like plugins (cf. firefox). Upgrades of FreeBSD do not touch these. On upgrades of Emacs, users might need to recompile, if the chose to run compiled Emacs Lisp modules. Is the Emacs package system something that requires an installation of its own? A clear no. ESS is just an interface to the R language/interpreter (math/R). It can run without R installed, although it is not very useful in my opinion the same way that having a languange-mode for an arbitrary languae is not really useful without the corresponding language compiler/interpreter around. But people do strange things .. May I suggest that if you let it go away, you place a README file where Emacs-extension-packages was that points users to the replacement, with instructions for how to get there? Not everyone using Emacs on FreeBSD follows the mailing lists for FreeBSD, (or Emacs). I do not now procedures for deprecated ports. I see emacs modes alike to plugins in firefox, which are not packaged as well, so I see the idea of potentially retiring math/ess in the wider setting of giving up more or less all emacs extensions. Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts. Cheers, -- Christopher ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
On Mo, 2014-11-24 at 00:48 +0100, Roland Smith wrote: On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:32:14AM +0100, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: I am well aware that very probably I might be starting a rant thread, however, I am genuinely interested in opinions from the community. Since version 24, Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor, has developed a package manager for Emacs extensions. Some good repos exist, packages are usually installed to ~/.emacs.d and I have come to really enjoy that way of installing packages. In that light and as the ports maintainer of math/ess, the Emacs speaks statistics R-mode of emacs, I am asking myself specifically whether I add any real benefit in maintaining math/ess. More generally, I am interested in community answers as to whether it is really useful to maintain Emacs-extension-packages in ports. Thanks for your thoughts, cheers, It might help to see this question in a broader context. There are several communities that have there own repositories/package managers these days, e.g: * TeX * Perl * Python * Ruby * Node * Emacs Yet the maintainers of the ports system go through the effort of maintaining ports for a lot of these packages, even though it might strictly speaking be considered a duplication of effort. There are at least two big reasons that I can think of; 1) FreeBSD specific patches are necessary to build a package. (I.e. every port that has a files subdirectory.) The ports tree is arguably the right place for that. The best case would be that such changes are merged upstream, but that doesn't always happen. 2) A foreign package might depend on a FreeBSD port or the other way around. How could this be handled properly if not in the ports tree? So by its very nature, if you want to reap the benefits of the ports infrastructure for your package, you have to *use* said infrastructure. Packages that *can* install in a user's $HOME directory and have no non-obvious dependencies are the exception to this rule, I think. No one will expect e.g. a vim bundle to do anything useful when vim is not installed! But such packages are obviously only available to the user that has installed them. So for a multi-user installation a port would still make more sense. Roland I think of Emacs modes differently than of Perl/Python/Ruby/Nodejs ... programs. The latter do not extend the languages, but use the language to provide independent utility to some user. Emacs modes, alike to the vim bundles you mentioned, extend Emacs (up to the ultimate goal that the user is for the whole duration of the session not forced to leave Emacs ;-) ). I cannot think of any Emacs mode being required by something non-Emacs. I have mentioned in a different answer that I see them alike to Firefox plugins. The only patches I noted so far to Emacs ports concern the placement of files, although I may well be wrong here. I have problems imaging a multi-user installation with multiple instances of Emacs mode packages installed. My elders have told tales of lore of mighty heroes connecting to machines using tools of magic called terminals, so they all could toil on the same computer. Jokes aside, I can only think of thin client settings where one would want to avoid multiple packages of the same program installed. Isn't everybody using independent so called personal computers now? Without any irony, that's a real question: I thought thin client computing has more or less died, am I wrong here? Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts on that matter -- Christopher signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:12:06AM -0800, Perry Hutchison wrote: Christopher J. Ruwe c...@cruwe.de wrote: ... Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor ... Perhaps someone should port vi to it? That actually already happened quite a while ago. Just add (require 'viper) to your .emacs file. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
[trimmed to a single mailing list] Christopher J. Ruwe c...@cruwe.de writes: Since version 24, Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor, has developed a package manager for Emacs extensions. Some good repos exist, packages are usually installed to ~/.emacs.d and I have come to really enjoy that way of installing packages. The two methods are equivalent on a single-user machine. If we had a canned method to install Emacs packages to the site-local lisp directories without using the ports system, that would make the ports less relevant on multi-user systems as well. There are also differences in convenience based on which repositories provide which packages. My first reaction is that removing the ports would only be advisable for packages available from the official Gnu repository (elpa.gnu.org), and not for others. So: I don't think the ports are without value, but we could move that way for many of them if we wanted. Once the number of users of earlier versions of emacs is sufficiently small, that is. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
Christopher J. Ruwe c...@cruwe.de wrote: ... Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor ... Perhaps someone should port vi to it? [dons flame-proof suit] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
Christopher J. Ruwe c...@cruwe.de wrote: I am well aware that very probably I might be starting a rant thread, however, I am genuinely interested in opinions from the community. Since version 24, Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor, has developed a package manager for Emacs extensions. Some good repos exist, packages are usually installed to ~/.emacs.d and I have come to really enjoy that way of installing packages. In that light and as the ports maintainer of math/ess, the Emacs speaks statistics R-mode of emacs, I am asking myself specifically whether I add any real benefit in maintaining math/ess. More generally, I am interested in community answers as to whether it is really useful to maintain Emacs-extension-packages in ports. I don't use math/ess, but in general I prefer to install application extensions from ports. I already know how it works and this way I also can check were the software is coming from without having to familiarise myself with various different package managers and know that checksums have been verified before installing it. Does ELPA verify checksums? After searching the web for a couple of minutes My impression is that it installs whatever the server (or a MITM) provides but hopefully my impression is incorrect. Fabian pgpuXF1P57r6k.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: In that light and as the ports maintainer of math/ess, the Emacs speaks statistics R-mode of emacs, I am asking myself specifically whether I add any real benefit in maintaining math/ess. More generally, I am interested in community answers as to whether it is really useful to maintain Emacs-extension-packages in ports. As a non-Emacs user, can I raise some questions that should be asked every time a service/feature is withdrawn? If you stop maintaining math/ess, does it go away, or merely stop improving? Does the Emacs package system support the same versions of Emacs that you support in math/ess? If a user upgrades FreeBSD will he lose what he has unless he converts to the new Emacs package system? Is the Emacs package system something that requires an installation of its own? May I suggest that if you let it go away, you place a README file where Emacs-extension-packages was that points users to the replacement, with instructions for how to get there? Not everyone using Emacs on FreeBSD follows the mailing lists for FreeBSD, (or Emacs). Daniel Feenberg ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/23/14 02:05, Fabian Keil wrote: Christopher J. Ruwe c...@cruwe.de wrote: I am well aware that very probably I might be starting a rant thread, however, I am genuinely interested in opinions from the community. Since version 24, Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor, has developed a package manager for Emacs extensions. Some good repos exist, packages are usually installed to ~/.emacs.d and I have come to really enjoy that way of installing packages. In that light and as the ports maintainer of math/ess, the Emacs speaks statistics R-mode of emacs, I am asking myself specifically whether I add any real benefit in maintaining math/ess. More generally, I am interested in community answers as to whether it is really useful to maintain Emacs-extension-packages in ports. I don't use math/ess, but in general I prefer to install application extensions from ports. I already know how it works and this way I also can check were the software is coming from without having to familiarise myself with various different package managers and know that checksums have been verified before installing it. Does ELPA verify checksums? After searching the web for a couple of minutes My impression is that it installs whatever the server (or a MITM) provides but hopefully my impression is incorrect. I prefer to let emacs manage its packages, so that I can easily move my environment from system to system (not necessarily FreeBSD). My inits and all the required packages live in one place: .emacs.d. I have zero emacs ports installed, other than emacs itself. rsyncing .emacs.d to linuxen works as it should. elpa/melpa et al were a little rocky a few years ago but now things are smooth. I completely agree that the issues raised in favor of ports are also valid. Best regards, Russell Fabian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUcitdAAoJEFnLrGVSDFaEZuEP/0L3ysfQEXlqxnWTKU9Ppeqy fKGY2FU45FIBol3N0mE/DcUUgqlpBgnvdW0aJtxm+eoFQcwd9fkxP7CEJZ7w4bzx /qry2s+hvOX9bBjUWTebB0k+Gbmea7xDJEqy5aDGZokcHAM8r5ICRWCV0H/WJZkP s4TBSmHrp6HvKxGu5qtORlkZLln8fF0ZBS5th3z33En7GQ3G8xEY1T+h6veWvGtN 4UPCfnadbv4hmTKzmLD2c8N3OXj230a7jBB5LgDX/CmNbz8kmomhmFG6XjOK3y9s NKUyo9hVTSQwdBExgLanVuSKkIFHuZeFWDIW2o+TiayIcHzJuKR0g/FEOBLuUpXM SPcXYBxZiDSpFmRZu0OyliURNdfW1vKd8J5nEUB6NuMPLzR6gTKM6WhkJM7QWTkR JEnSROc+Pq7Lpbu+Fv4HfCOdYOwzkjhJ7LYir+aq5ToHIwfRkVDlJ6/OmaEHrj28 1K4SB94iwpsJAygWkNVu1grlMVbTabdpHvvZgtF9QQBndXGwf+8mhlemD/4hlqYZ UlE1CN+5D6p/6GBQugkQ+br2/Kpu0km9AUSAoVVtVBsFFZmOTxffljIajcC/2I59 VwlybSDuzOoXpP3esOH0wfRMA5yM1c0x8ZZ0bIKmoQ9R5ExJtd5xgakieNrdNQ9k 5GGjoNFEc2+gyZcltB25 =8iqG -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
On 11/23/14 00:32, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: I am well aware that very probably I might be starting a rant thread, however, I am genuinely interested in opinions from the community. ... More generally, I am interested in community answers as to whether it is really useful to maintain Emacs-extension-packages in ports. Hello. I was asking myself the same question some days ago... I'm no emacs-port maintainer, so my PoV was that of a user, wondering where to look first and which repository/package manager was best used in case what I was looking for was present in both. Rather than give an answer, I'll raise a further doubt: isn't this question applicabile in general (e.g. to Firefox with it's xpi ports)? While I like having my installed xpi/emacs extension listed in pkg's reports (and only look in one place), I don't think the port system might be able to track them all, so I'll eventually end up anyway with some package which is not installed via pkg. Just my 2c. bye av. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 12:32:14AM +0100, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: I am well aware that very probably I might be starting a rant thread, however, I am genuinely interested in opinions from the community. Since version 24, Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor, has developed a package manager for Emacs extensions. Some good repos exist, packages are usually installed to ~/.emacs.d and I have come to really enjoy that way of installing packages. In that light and as the ports maintainer of math/ess, the Emacs speaks statistics R-mode of emacs, I am asking myself specifically whether I add any real benefit in maintaining math/ess. More generally, I am interested in community answers as to whether it is really useful to maintain Emacs-extension-packages in ports. Thanks for your thoughts, cheers, It might help to see this question in a broader context. There are several communities that have there own repositories/package managers these days, e.g: * TeX * Perl * Python * Ruby * Node * Emacs Yet the maintainers of the ports system go through the effort of maintaining ports for a lot of these packages, even though it might strictly speaking be considered a duplication of effort. There are at least two big reasons that I can think of; 1) FreeBSD specific patches are necessary to build a package. (I.e. every port that has a files subdirectory.) The ports tree is arguably the right place for that. The best case would be that such changes are merged upstream, but that doesn't always happen. 2) A foreign package might depend on a FreeBSD port or the other way around. How could this be handled properly if not in the ports tree? So by its very nature, if you want to reap the benefits of the ports infrastructure for your package, you have to *use* said infrastructure. Packages that *can* install in a user's $HOME directory and have no non-obvious dependencies are the exception to this rule, I think. No one will expect e.g. a vim bundle to do anything useful when vim is not installed! But such packages are obviously only available to the user that has installed them. So for a multi-user installation a port would still make more sense. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://rsmith.home.xs4all.nl/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 5753 3324 1661 B0FE 8D93 FCED 40F6 D5DC A38A 33E0 (keyID: A38A33E0) pgp2YDWbnD0Jc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
On So, 2014-11-23 at 00:12 -0800, Perry Hutchison wrote: Christopher J. Ruwe c...@cruwe.de wrote: ... Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor ... Perhaps someone should port vi to it? [dons flame-proof suit] That's not necessary. You can run vi in ansi-term mode ... -- Christopher ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
I am well aware that very probably I might be starting a rant thread, however, I am genuinely interested in opinions from the community. Since version 24, Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor, has developed a package manager for Emacs extensions. Some good repos exist, packages are usually installed to ~/.emacs.d and I have come to really enjoy that way of installing packages. In that light and as the ports maintainer of math/ess, the Emacs speaks statistics R-mode of emacs, I am asking myself specifically whether I add any real benefit in maintaining math/ess. More generally, I am interested in community answers as to whether it is really useful to maintain Emacs-extension-packages in ports. Thanks for your thoughts, cheers, -- Christopher ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports
On Sunday, 23 November 2014 at 0:32:14 +0100, Christopher J. Ruwe wrote: I am well aware that very probably I might be starting a rant thread, however, I am genuinely interested in opinions from the community. Since version 24, Emacs, the very good operating system missing only a decent editor, has developed a package manager for Emacs extensions. Some good repos exist, packages are usually installed to /.emacs.d and I have come to really enjoy that way of installing packages. In that light and as the ports maintainer of math/ess, the Emacs speaks statistics R-mode of emacs, I am asking myself specifically whether I add any real benefit in maintaining math/ess. More generally, I am interested in community answers as to whether it is really useful to maintain Emacs-extension-packages in ports. A good question. I was wondering that myself. I'd be happy to retire our versions. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html Sent from my desktop computer. Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua pgpoItR6O_7dd.pgp Description: PGP signature
