"Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]" wrote:
>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew O Persico <mpersico(a)erols.com>
writes:
Matthew> A lot of this looks suspiciously like perl. This is a GOOd thing.
Matthew> Larry and his crew have got packages down cold. Emulation can't
Matthew> but help.
Oh god, what nonsense ...
And why is this nonsense? It is, of course my <opinion> and I probably
should have explicitly stated as such.
I was not suggesting that you did slavishly emulate the Perl system, nor
did I suggest that you should slavishly emulate the Perl system. I
was, in actuality, complementing you on the fact that either by
emulation or by your original creativity and talent, you had managed
to include features that are also included in what is
<opinion>
one of the more flexible, consistent and easy to use software
packaging systems in existence today, as evidenced by my personal
ease of use and, more importantly, the acceptance of the scheme by
the Perl community at large.
</opinion>
Matthew> "Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]" wrote:
>>
>> The following constraint must hold:
>>
>> Two different author versions of a package must have different
>> versions as well.
[snip]
Matthew> Hmm. Foo-1.4, Foo-1.5, etc. That may be fine for buildnig
the package or
Matthew> even identifying it (a-la Perl modules), but what's going to be the
Matthew> mechanism for determining which installed Foo will be used? I say keep
Matthew> the version OUT of the final install directory structures.
>From the draft:
> (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.
Others have commented subsequently. I will let their comments speak as I
have nothing else of value to add to the subject at this time.