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

Re: dh-make-elpa ?

Dear zimoun,

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 11:52:26AM +0100, zimoun wrote:
> Firstly, because some of these security issues are partially fixed by
> Emacs 25.1, if I understand well. Then, I am sure they will be fixed
> Emacs-side soon, I guess. Maybe not so soon for e.g., the package
> signature or other fancy Debian-package features ; whatever.
> Therefore, from my point of view, the aim of a such tool corresponds
> more to the use of all the Debian infrastructure (well-integration,
> reproducibility, stability and "long-term" support, etc.). From what I
> understand, it is the same sort of idea for Emacs-packages than for
> Python-packages, R-packages, Perl-packages, etc. Each of them has its
> own package manager working more or less efficiently, and they are
> still packaged by Debian. And it is not necessary about security
> reasons. All this package effort, is it not the same aim ?

MELPA still pulls packages from a publicly editable wiki, which has
nothing to do with Emacs 25.1!

In general, you're right: the general Debian QA infrastructure is
another big reason to use the elpa-* packages, even after the various
problems with Emacs and MELPA get fixed.

> Secondly, the need of administrator privileges to install `elpa-*`
> packages is --from my point of view-- a drawback. But, it is a not
> drawback of `elpa-*` package, it is a drawback about APT.

Indeed.  The primary use case for elpa-* packages is installation on a
personal computer, such as a laptop.

It would be great to see you in #debian-emacs.  Also see
<https://pkg-emacsen.alioth.debian.org> for introductory information.

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: