Many languages' package management systems install third-party packages in a subfolder of a given project's root repository. (E.g. node_modules/, deps/, etc.) This is nice as it allows multiple versions of a single package to coexist nicely, as each is isolated to the project that depends on it.
raco by default installs packages system-wide it seems. Is there a way to tell raco it should install packages in a particular folder?
The comment is right to point you to package scopes: using a directory package scope is the most fine-grained level of control available at the level of the package manager. However, as the docs say,
Conflict checking disallows installation of the same or conflicting
package in different scopes …
It is a design decision in the Racket package system not to allow multiple versions of the same package to coexist in the same installation. The idea is that a package shouldn't make breaking changes while using the same name. One inspiration that's been mentioned is OS level package systems like Debian's, where gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.8 are different packages that install different binaries. This is very different than the practice of some other language package systems (e.g. npm), but it works out well in practice because the Racket community takes backwards-compatibility quite seriously.
This is actually Racket's second package system. The old system, PLaneT, tried to be much more opinionated, including built-in notions of versioning. The new/current system consciously removed some of those elements to create a more minimal and focused package system, which means that a great deal of what formerly had to be "built in" to Racket can now be just another package. You may be interested in a talk about the design of the package system. There was also a fair amount of discussion at the time on the mailing list, which is archived here.
If you do find you need different package versions to an extent that can't be supported by existing mechanisms, you could use a stand-alone Racket installation (rather than a system-wide one) to get a completely isolated environment. I'm sure the Racket community would also be interested in hearing about any issues you have in practice.
Is it possible to use Cake to always get the latest version of a specific NuGet package? I know NuGet itself only allows you to set that at the base Nuget.config level. There are some internal packages that we would like to always get the latest version of (some of our database entities), while other internal packages we don't want to force a latest (our extensions package, for example). Right now we have to go through and manually update projects that rely on those packages, and I would like to automate those "always get latest" at build.
I don't see anything using any of the NuGet add-ins, but I am new to Cake so I'm hoping I am just missing something.
Has anyone had any luck using Cake to always retrieve the latest version on the feed for specific named packages, and just use the current packages.config version for the rest?
The short answer is that you can do anything that you want.
Cake out of the box will attempt to adopt established best principles for reproducible builds.
With the preprocessor directive, you could simply omit the version information, and Cake/NuGet will fetch the latest version. However, once downloaded to the tools folder, Cake/NuGet will not fetch it again. What you could do is add a custom step in your bootstrapper to clear the tools folder each time before build, and then the latest version will be downloaded each time.
Note: This is NOT a recommended approach, but rather something custom for your setup.
I went to add a NuGet package for Microsoft.TeamFoundationTracking.Client and in the list of available packages I have the options:
Microsoft.TeamFoundation.WorkItemTracking.Client
and
nuget-bot.Microsoft.TeamFoundation.WorkItemTracking.Client
The one with nuget-bot has a higher version number than the one without it. I don't ever recall seeing packages with the nuget-bot in the name. I assume there is some convention or format that this refers to.
Thanks for any explanation of what this means.
I'm not familiar with the nuget-bot packages, but if you are looking for official Microsoft binaries, you will want to look for those where the Owner is set to Microsoft (not just the author). The package you seek is most likely: Microsoft.TeamFoundationServer.ExtendedClient
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Although several thousand Emacs Lisp libraries exist, GNU Emacs, until version 24.1 did not have an (internal) package manager.
I guess that most users would agree that it is currently rather inconvenient to find, install and especially keep up-to-date Emacs Lisp libraries.
Pages that make life a bit easier
For versions of Emacs older than 24.1:
Emacs Lisp List - Problem: I see dead people (links).
Emacswiki - Problem: May contain traces of nuts (malicious code).
Emacsmirror - The package repository I am working on. Problem: No package manager supports it natively yet.
Some package managers
It's not that nobody has tried yet. (Some of these did not exist when this question was asked.)
auto-install
borg.el - Assimilate Emacs packages using Git submodules.
el-get.el - Supports many sources.
elinstall.el
epackage aka DELPS - Debian packaging concepts applied to Emacs Lisp packages.
epkg.el - This is now just a tool for browsing the Emacsmirror.
install.el
install-elisp.el
jem-pkg.el
package.el - ELPA. Seems like it will be included in Emacs 24.
UPDATE -- package.el is included in GNU Emacs, starting with version 24.1
pases.el
pelm - Command line installer; using php.
plugin.el
straight.el - Recent and experimental, has not reached 1.0 release yet.
use-package.el
XEmacs package manager
package has been included in the Emacs trunk. epkg is not ready yet and also currently not available. At least install-elisp, plugin and use-package do not seem to be actively maintained anymore.
I have created a git repository containing all these package managers as submodules.
Some utilities that might be useful
Package managers could use these utilities and/or they could be used to maintain a mirror of packages.
date-calc.el - Date calculation and parsing routines.
ell.el - Browse the Emacs Lisp List.
elm.el, elx.el, xpkg.el - Used to maintain the Emacsmirror.
genauto.el - Helps generate autoloads for your elisp packages.
inversion.el - Require specific package versions.
loadhist.el, lib-requires.el, elisp-depend.el - Commands to list Emacs Lisp library dependencies.
project-root.el - Define a project root and take actions based upon it.
strptime.el - Partial implementation of POSIX date and time parsing.
wikirel.el - Visit relevant pages on the Emacs Wiki.
Discussions about the subject at hand
emacs-devel 20080801
comp.emacs 20021121
RationalElispPackaging
The question (finally)
So - I would like to know from you what you consider important/unimportant/supplementary etc. in a package manager for Emacs.
Some ideas
Many packages (the Emacsmirror provides that largest available collection of packages, but there is no explicit support in any package manager yet).
Only packages that have been tested.
Support for more than one package archive (so people can choose between many/tested packages).
Dependency calculated based on required features only.
Dependencies take particular versions into account.
Only use versions that have been released upstream.
Use versions from version control systems if available.
Packages are categorized.
Packages can be uninstalled and updated not only installed.
Support creating fork of upstream version of packages.
Support publishing these forks.
Support choosing a fork.
After installation packages are activated.
Generate autoload files.
Integration with Emacswiki (see wikirel.el).
Users can tag, comment etc. packages and share that information.
Only FSF-assigned/GPL/FOSS software or don't care about license.
Package manager should be integrated be distributed with Emacs.
Support for easily contacting author.
Lots of metadata.
Suggest alternatives before installing a particular package.
I am hoping for these kinds of answers
Pointers to more implementations, discussions etc.
Lengthy descriptions of a set of features that make up your ideal package manager.
Descriptions of one particular desired/undesired feature. Feel free to elaborate on my ideas from above.
Surprise me.
I'm still learning Emacs, so I haven't had a chance to look into package managers, but a great feature would be to inform the user that the package is available if they try to use it but it's not on their system. For example, I wanted to edit a PHP file on a server once, and I tried
M-x php-mode
and Emacs was all like
M-x php-mode [no match]
when it should have been like
php-mode available from ftp.gnu.org. install? (y/n)
and then it would have installed and loaded up php-mode for me. That would have made my day right there.
Automatic publishing from version control
I'd love to see a standard, central, and single Emacs package manager. Right now, I'd put my money on ELPA, but there is still a long way to go.
The biggest thing that would help an Emacs package manager would be to make it super trivial to publish packages. In my opinion, I'd like to see this happen in combination with a version control system like git on a central hosted platform like GitHub -- something that would make it easy for authors to publish their packages and would make it easy for others to contribute back.
Similar to how GitHub (used to) make it easy to publish RubyGems, I'd like to see something similar in an Emacs package manager. For example, tag your repository with "vX.Y.Z" and have your elisp goodness automatically available to all.
The added benefit of using a popular backend like GitHub is that you'd immediately get a lot of exposure which should help drive its success.
What I expect most is that everything useful is on it, and works well. This requires you (or a team of maintainers) to aggressively pursue packaging everything for it, and doing whatever that involves — emailing every author of a useful package, and so on.
For instance, the reason Debian (and its derivatives: Ubuntu etc.) is so good is that you can happily use your system without ever having to install something outside the repositories, and that everything on it is thoroughly tested. The actual features of the package manager are important, but secondary to the managed packages themselves.
Easy configuration synchronization: I, like many people, use Emacs on many different computers and servers, some of them my own and some not. It would be amazing if the package manager had some sort of file which I could transfer from one computer to another; then, on the latter computer, the package manager would bring my Emacs into the state I like it in -- all the packages installed and configurations set. Combined with the ability to be able to easily install either site-wide (if one has root permissions) or as a single user, I could synchronize all of Emacsen everywhere.
I'm nearly positive that the best solution involves submitting more packages to ELPA and adding multi-source support to package.el. The Emacs maintainers have said that they would consider including package.el in version 24 as long as it pointed to an FSF repository by default.
Of course, submission also needs to be an automated process too; the current method of mailing the ELPA maintainer only works on a small scale.
No matter how this is done, the most important thing in my opinion is that it should be trivial to submit packages to the repository. At the same time, we do not want those packages to be instantly available, to guard against malicious code(and due to licensing issues). Unless there is a "trust" system in place, based on crypto signatures.
Also useful:
"metapackages", to install several packages at once.
In the same way, we should be able to install a set of elisp files, for maintainability
"Broken" packages should not be allowed to disrupt Emacs startup. This is easy and I have it implemented in my own .emacs
Ability to install files other than scripts. This is often overlooked, but very useful. You'd be able to, for instance, ship images, for icons, toolbars, etc.
Versioning:package X requires package Y > 1.0
Testing: perform basic sanity checks, testing for conflicts (keybindings, function redefinitions, functions that are expected to be present but aren't, etc).
BUG TRACKING: I can't stress the importance of this enough. Having a centralized place to report package bugs (and being able to track them) is extremely important to assure the quality of the packages.
Some sort of compressed archive seems to be best to do some of the above.
So far, a much improved ELPA seems the way to go.
I once spent some time writing a small package manager for Emacs.
http://gmarceau.qc.ca/plugin.el
I wrote:
Plugin is my attempt at creating a
package manager for Emacs. Plugin
will automatically downloads Emacs
extensions, unpacks them in a
directory, adds that directory to the
load-path, generates auto-load
annotations, and modify your dot-emacs
file. The auto-load annotations are a
little-known feature of Emacs. Once
they are generated, Emacs extensions
load quickly and incrementally, which
is really nice if you have as many
extensions installed as I do.
You will need two library files to get it to run, loop-constructs.el and record.el
I think the hackers for the iPhone got quite close to what I want, as does Ubuntu's "apt".
I like to be able to:
add
remove (package only)
remove user settings
view documentation
upgrade ( after reading the change log)
add new archive ( aka add repository )
see dependencies
see version
search for name, keyword
browse by (date added, date modified, name)
save all installed packages & settings
load set of packages & settings
I would like a main set of things that all work nicely and are the recommended way of doing whatever. Then a global set where everything working gets in. Then the ability for anyone to host their own archive.
It would be nice if this was all tied into git/svn/whatever so that you could install old versions. Make your own patches by forking off etc etc etc....
Besides the mentioned above, i expect something like debian, and other repositories - set of the stable, experemental, untested packages. Ability to add my own repositories - i use lot of the packages directly from VCS, so it could be useful to create my own packages
I think that the package manager should take a lot of inspiration from Rubygems. I also think that it should have a site like Gemcutter.
A central repository could also be nice (like Emacsmirror). This however may not be necessary if a site like Gemcutter exists that collects all packages.
I think these things are important for this to work.
Central location of some kind that collects all packages
Easy to add packages
Easy to maintain packages
Easy to contribute to other packages
Easy to install, uninstall and update packages
Possibility to add package dependencies
Common structure for all packages
So a package manager like Rubygems with a site like Gemcutter and a central repository like Emacsmirror (preferably on Github because of it's social coding) would do Emacs really good.
All in all I think that much inspiration should be taken from Rails and how Rails handles Gems.
I don't know how fresh this question is...
but the model I would like to see is CPAN. I also don't know Rubygems but it sounds similar to CPAN.
CPAN is a perl archive + library management system. When I need to write a perl program that requires... FTP or SOAP or JSON or XML or ZIP, or...etc, I can run the CPAN package manager, select the requisite package for download, view and verify the dependencies, then install everything. CPAN is mirrored .."everywhere".
CPAN works wonderfully for my purposes, and something similar for emacs would be nice to have. It also supports building C/C++ code on demand.
That's what I would like to see in emacs.
Some further comment on requirements.
explicit download of packages. No auto install. No invisible downloads. I want to ask for new libraries or new function.
I should be able to list the name/version/timestamp of installed packages.
If my friend gives me his list, I should be able to diff his emacs state against mine.
check-for-updates function. What updates are available? What do they fix?
depedency checking, verification, and download. If I install csharp-mode and it requires v5.0.28 of cc-mode, then it should confirm with me, that I must also download cc-mode.
there should be some sort of community ranking of these packages, like ranking torrents on isohunt. I want to see if a package has 3 upvotes or 3000.
"transactional" behavior. If an install goes boom, it must unwind to a last-known-good state.
failsafes. If I've put custom mods in linum.el, it should refuse to install a new version over my changes, unless I explicitly allow it. It should warn me before even starting. Do this with checksums/md5's over the existing install.
have the option of running some packages from compressed archives, like zip files. So I never have any doubt that I have not updated any of the embbedded elisp.
ability to use mirrored hosts for package distribution.
all this function should be accessible through M-x library-manageemnt or something.
Finally, it would be nice to have a way to segregate or organize libraries of functions. Hierarchical namespaces. Emacs' flat namespace is very dated. This is sort of independent but complementary to the core function of package management. I'm not a lisp guru so I don't know how hard this would be; maybe there is already a way to do it.
Package managers don't offer anything I value w.r.t. single-file elisp packages with simple dependencies: adding and deleting from site-lisp has never caused problems. It's packages that depend on external programs (e.g., ispell), multi-file packages (e.g., auctex, org-mode) that can be tricky. Can't think of any single-file elisp package with nontrivial dependencies, offhand.
For these, short of a package manager, I'd like emacs' elisp-packages to acquire test suites which can be run en masse, and which provide useful information in the event of dependency failures.