$EMACSPACKAGEPATH not honoured

[Andreas Roehler]

Michael Sperber wrote:
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> 
>> To serve your needs, I would like to revive my opaque-packages
>> proposal.  The basic structure of opaque-packages is a hierarchy
>> rooted at "opaque-packages", which is a sibling of xemacs-packages,
>> mule-packages, and site-packages.  The children of opaque-packages are
>> directories.  Each directory contains a package.  The structure of a
>> package directory: it must contain one or the other or both of two
>> special libraries, auto-autoloads and $PACKAGE-setup.[1]  That's all
>> XEmacs knows about it (and that's why I call it "opaque packages").
>> If neither special library is present, XEmacs ignores that directory
>> and everything in it.
> 
> Is this really worth the complexity?  After all, a certain amount of
> manual setup is always required with these non-standard packages.
> What's wrong with just having people set their load-path?
> 

You are right IMO.
XEmacs still is forward with its package-system, which is great in many respects and
prospecting.

But some things around are grown such complicated, people simply will no longer use it.

BTW that pertains also to the 3-step-installation advise, with extra efs install.

After ./configure and make a XEmacs build should be able to deal with its packages.

Seems all the efs-stuff belongs into the core, into the hg-archiv?
	
Curious to hear any hindrance here.


Andreas