Re: using use-package

[Phillip Lord]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> Stefan is saying that many packages do things _wrong_.
>
> Actually, no.  What I was saying is that several use-package features
> are only useful if a package is poorly packaged.

Yes, or not packaged at all, or in development to be packaged in the
future or where the developer of a package which is well-packaged wants
to provide an option configuration for development time on his machine.

And this is some features, not but all of them.


> In the mean time, it became apparent that the reason for that is that
> I assume people (will) use ELPA to install their packages, whereas
> use-package was designed for the case where packages are installed some
> other way.

It became apparent that the original developer of use-package does not
use ELPA, but not the only developer, nor many of the users of use-package.


> Hence use-package partly overlaps with ELPA, and in those parts that
> overlaps, the work is done differently: in ELPA the work is done by the
> packager, whereas in use-package the work is done by the end-user (since
> there's no packager doing that work for him).

In the case of this form, can you tell me how the package is poorly
packaged, or how this is overlapping with ELPA?

(use-package pabbrev
  :ensure t
  :defer t
  :config (global-pabbrev-mode))


It does overlap with package.el -- as it obviates the need to use the
GUI to package.el, since this will install pabbrev if necessary.

But overlapping with ELPA? It seems to me that it is working entirely
with ELPA. The installation step uses package.el to achieve it's ends.

Even

(use-package org-mode)

is useful since it gives performance data on start up that

(require 'org-mode)

does not.

Phil