Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:48:38 +0100 From: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> To: "Christopher J. Ruwe" <cjr@cruwe.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: value of maintaining emacs-mode packages in ports Message-ID: <20141123234838.GA36524@slackbox.erewhon.home> In-Reply-To: <1416699134.31598.2.camel@mccarthy> References: <1416699134.31598.2.camel@mccarthy>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 p= ort that has a files subdirectory.) The ports tree is arguably the right pla= ce 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 wi= ll 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 install= ed them. So for a multi-user installation a port would still make more sense. Roland --=20 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) --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUcnJGAAoJEED21dyjijPgfCQQAMTrUtlxxBT87SsihuBUpnwT CqbnP55/7A6nu+uotr0llpxLJS/gMChrbLWio/ywSmA3YmFBlJ6VjpvKHTqdQ9lX WO25aPtjzo+MPpAxO08lgJgtdshHevl5OgemLynNR71YzoNJhsDwmkPYi4cxOpRW zV3ohVEaLBcoxbFYXWBR0xbFb0Xq7IJUTTazLAh1oM8MnSGOGCQElHn95dVDrBfc PgjAKFtVhZokamXPcV/vgPYrjVQ8j2Gcq01YswfgeJdOSnPxISR4seOzqR1GDKGu +C8pNa5ovcgiDZGQeFPT8ELW05ZI2SnVmV45pO8xd+liNglAiowc65N73zPU8D0x kXQV41yHGaQhDkty7a8DTE0rudbReH6ZnnAwcWYIiryuuvW0Gk7tkdvDqbjMLj/d RpZ+fPZfiY2NkkClCpFv2Zz6HKdycLDZ+DAzq451PS+t2yFIhXk64M2TNEmCksIf Cc3DK24qn0n3Go3Wj4p+XKNS4pdY6BPPdIuyySYl9eZYAxD1s8uhuLuSdU9kiIgH XAGQHYLRwRmamdYe9xbvAHZWSdiUdrRqwX9+CVHSlzoAAXQ0jVXsk6P/bnTOvP+9 xSeRA2tPZ7ALHZImAT33ETekAtq0m3dFG+XkJa79VQedPSCEBhvchjIzN3eKBWEJ 4avG73J5USaM9NGPBRiU =JIAz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141123234838.GA36524>