[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sml-mode

The *sml-mode* package does thus:

1) It installs the following into
  (setq load-path (cons (concat "/usr/share/" (symbol-name flavor)
                                "/site-lisp/sml-mode") load-path)) .

2) It uses *debconf* to ask¹ whether *sml-mode* should be installed
   site-wide.  If so, the following is appended to

  (load "sml-mode-startup") .

> Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@globetrotter.net> writes:
> > The general rule is to prompt if general setup overrides Emacs
> > behaviour.  So don't prompt if no version of Emacs support this
> > mode, but prompt otherwise (e.g. auctex overrides regular
> > latex-mode, so it prompts).

OK. [This "general rule" should be added to the Emacs Policy, then.]

Colin Walters <walters@debian.org> writes:

> Ah, I see.  That makes sense.  Well, in this case there isn't a
> predefined sml mode, so prompting is probably unnecessary, no?

Hmm, well, there are /many/ emacs add-ons.  Each individual user might
want some particular add-on.  If I were administering a site with
thousands of users, I would not load /every/ emacs add-on, site-wide.
("What the heck is Standard ML, anyway?")

On the other hand, for me, my laptop, and I, it makes sense to install
site-wide an add-on that all we users use :-).

Furthermore, what happens when two emacs modes claim the same file-name
extensions (eg., ".p")?

In conclusion, If I am not missing something obvious, I think the
"general rule" should be reconsidered; but if you all insist, I will
remove the "Install site-wide" *debconf* question from postinst.

Thanks for taking the time to inspect my package!
                                                    Jens Peter Secher
 jpsecher@diku.dk - http://www.diku.dk/~jpsecher - (+45) 35 32 14 08
_OpenPGP fingerprint CAE0 8F31 FD48 1E12 1FAF 5674 250F 2C8B 0437 9F48_

¹ The debconf question is given a low priority, so the administrator
will only be asked if he insists on being asked silly questions.

Reply to: