GNU bug report logs - #26455
Emacs Packaging

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 26455 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 26455 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Muto <muto.lachen <at> tutanota.com>
To: <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Emacs Packaging
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:02:17 +0200 (CEST)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Request to alter the "recommended" way of installing Emacs in GNU/Linux:

Although technically not a bug, the "Download" section in the Emacs website is somewhat vague in describing how to install Emacs in GNU/Linux. Rather than the options "build from source" or "use an older version", I believe Emacs should ship packaged with a tool such as 
AppImage (http://appimage.org)
Or FlatPak (http://flatpak.org).
This way installation on GNU/Linux systems would be simplified significantly and on top of that users would have easy access to the latest version rather than installing from a repository.
--Stay paranoid, and happy hacking! -Muto
https://mastodon.social/@MutoShack

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #8 received at 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Muto <muto.lachen <at> tutanota.com>
Cc: 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26455: Emacs Packaging
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:39:13 -0400

Muto wrote:

> Although technically not a bug, the "Download" section in the Emacs
> website is somewhat vague in describing how to install Emacs in
> GNU/Linux. Rather than the options "build from source" or "use an
> older version", I believe Emacs should ship packaged with a tool such
> as
> AppImage (http://appimage.org)
> Or FlatPak (http://flatpak.org).
> This way installation on GNU/Linux systems would be simplified
> significantly and on top of that users would have easy access to the
> latest version rather than installing from a repository.

Staying paranoid as requested:

Do these approaches mean that the Emacs developers then become
responsible for shipping all the required dependent libraries,
monitoring them for security issues, and updating them when needed,
rather than relying on the distribution to do that?

> --Stay paranoid, and happy hacking! -Muto

Message #11 received at 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Muto <muto.lachen <at> tutanota.com>
Cc: 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26455: Emacs Packaging
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:44:36 -0400

PS If these technologies take off, this perhaps feels like something
that should be addressed at the GNU level rather than the Emacs level.
(Perhaps guix already provides some version of this?)

Message #14 received at 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Muto <muto.lachen <at> tutanota.com>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>, 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26455: Emacs Packaging
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 06:25:59 +0200 (CEST)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Sorry for the late reply, been thinking it over.
I have to say I completely agree with you, to keep all the libraries up to date inside a .appimage package would be awkward to maintain.
Perhaps I'll write a tool to help simplify this method someday.

So about installing Emacs (the latest version), maybe have a list off packages the user needs for it, at least the packages that aren't usually installed by default, on the "Download" page?

e.g.:
To install Emacs from source, make sure you have the following packages installed:
build-essential texinfo libx11-dev libxpm-dev libjpeg-dev libpng-dev libgif-dev libtiff-dev libgtk2.0-dev libncurses-dev libxpm-dev automake autoconf
Then simply "./configure" "make" "make install"

Although, I'm not sure, many package names are different by other GNU/Linux distributions.
Sorry for the long letter, I'm sure you're really busy, but thank you for your time.

- -Stay paranoid. -Muto
https://mastodon.social/@MutoShack


12. Apr 2017 13:44 by rgm <at> gnu.org:


>
> PS If these technologies take off, this perhaps feels like something
> that should be addressed at the GNU level rather than the Emacs level.
> (Perhaps guix already provides some version of this?)

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #19 received at 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Muto <muto.lachen <at> tutanota.com>, 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26455: Emacs Packaging
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 02:58:09 +0100

Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Muto wrote:
>
>> Although technically not a bug, the "Download" section in the Emacs
>> website is somewhat vague in describing how to install Emacs in
>> GNU/Linux. Rather than the options "build from source" or "use an
>> older version", I believe Emacs should ship packaged with a tool such
>> as
>> AppImage (http://appimage.org)
>> Or FlatPak (http://flatpak.org).
>> This way installation on GNU/Linux systems would be simplified
>> significantly and on top of that users would have easy access to the
>> latest version rather than installing from a repository.
>
> Staying paranoid as requested:
>
> Do these approaches mean that the Emacs developers then become
> responsible for shipping all the required dependent libraries,
> monitoring them for security issues, and updating them when needed,
> rather than relying on the distribution to do that?
>
>> --Stay paranoid, and happy hacking! -Muto

Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> writes:

> PS If these technologies take off, this perhaps feels like something
> that should be addressed at the GNU level rather than the Emacs level.
> (Perhaps guix already provides some version of this?)

While I think this is not a bad idea in and of itself, I think this is
beyond the scope of the Emacs project at the moment given our scarce
resources.  Or perhaps it's better addressed at the GNU level as Glenn
suggests.

I'd therefore suggest to close this as wontfix.  Any other opinions?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message #22 received at 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Muto <muto.lachen <at> tutanota.com>, 26455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26455: Emacs Packaging
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 21:17:50 +0100

tags 26455 + wontfix
close 26455
thanks

Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se> writes:

> Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> PS If these technologies take off, this perhaps feels like something
>> that should be addressed at the GNU level rather than the Emacs level.
>> (Perhaps guix already provides some version of this?)
>
> While I think this is not a bad idea in and of itself, I think this is
> beyond the scope of the Emacs project at the moment given our scarce
> resources.  Or perhaps it's better addressed at the GNU level as Glenn
> suggests.
>
> I'd therefore suggest to close this as wontfix.  Any other opinions?

No further comments within 5 weeks, so I'm closing this as wontfix.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.