Re: Mailcrypt - EMACS package maintainers please read this message.
>>>>> "RB" == Rob Browning.
RB> "Davide G. M. Salvetti" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> BTW, I don't remember if we have ever discussed about it, but I also
>> think add-on packages should byte-compile in background , since it
>> could be a quiet long job. They should also provide a log.
>> : It would be nice if the user could choose whether to have
>> background or foreground byte-compilation, but this may be a bit unfair
>> with respect to unattended installation (the less you ask the user, the
>> better, especially on new (not upgrade one) installation).
RB> While I agree with this in principle, I'm not ready to make policy
RB> about it. For now, it'll just be up to the maintainers to decide.
RB> After we get things rolling (and the users start complaining :>), then
RB> we can deal with this on a case by case basis.
Just asking, wouldn't be better to provide a unified interface, where your
scripts decide if install/add-on-package should be called in foreground or
background (or, maybe, pass an argument to install/add-on-package
suggesting what to do)?
Maybe it's not a good idea (in fact I don't like it very much), but I
think we should consider this possibility, even if we choose not to
Davide G. M. Salvetti - IW5DZC [JN53fr]
Take a look at Debian GNU/Linux: <http://www.debian.org/>.
Debian is the free operating system with open development model.