Re: New package system design draft

Tuesday, 13 July 1999

        sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:

...
 - a name (a symbol)
 - a description
 - a version (a string "<major>.<minor>") 
Are <major> and <minor> supposed to be numbers?

...
 - a list of package specifications (see below) which must be
satisfied 
   for the package to be able to compile
 - a list of package specifications (see below) which must be satisfied
   for the package to run 
I would love to see (for the purposes of the install tool) the debian
dpkg-style weaker dependencies. Also I would dearly love a list of
features provided (or at least major and minor modes).

...
 (use-package <package-specification>)

 This indicates a preference for a package matching the specification
 to XEmacs.  This means that, in the future, no other packages with the 
 same name may be used in the running XEmacs.  It also has the
 side-effect of making the package's autoloads available. 
When exactly are the packages autoloads read? What happens to packages 
that are never '(use-package ..)'ed? Or more specifically: How do the
major/minor modes, menu entries and user commands implemented by packages get
advertised?

...
 Nothing related to packages shows up in the relevant ...-path and
 ...-directory-list variables.  (I.e., package lisp subdirectories do
 not end up in `load-path.)  However, the relevant functions which used
 to search in them still go through the package directories as a last
 resort. 
Thus 'load-path''s standard value is "nil"? Per is going to love
that.

Jan

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998