From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 12:41:07 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F32AD14C for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:41:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD31DE85 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:41:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lowell-desk.lan (lowell-desk.lan [172.30.250.41]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C155933C1D for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:40:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by lowell-desk.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 64BEE39822; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:40:54 -0500 (EST) From: Lowell Gilbert To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports References: <1416699134.31598.2.camel@mccarthy> Reply-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 07:40:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1416699134.31598.2.camel@mccarthy> (Christopher J. Ruwe's message of "Sun, 23 Nov 2014 00:32:14 +0100") Message-ID: <44mw7g22lm.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:41:08 -0000 [trimmed to a single mailing list] "Christopher J. Ruwe" 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.