Alexis, Wow :) Thank you for the information.
My current issue is that Debian installs the distribution picolisp-mode by default and for some reason the melpa package (yours) is not available. Also, on Debian (well, it was Raspbian but I guess that's the same), when you open a picolisp file and you try to launch a picolisp process from the Picolisp menu, it doesn't work, as I wrote yesterday. As far as emacs is concerned, we have melpa to manage our packages and in the picolisp case we have the Debian based distributions that only have access to the old mode and is not aware of the melpa package, and the rest of the world that has access to the melpa package and is not aware of the distribution package (or would not bother since the file is so old). That's messy. Considering that the melpa package is very actively maintained and supports the doc set, and that the distribution maintainers are not active, shouldn't we prefer a more standard "emacsy" way of dealing with the emacs mode and prefer what is on melpa (while eventually adding missing stuff from the distribution to the melpa archive)? Jean-Christophe > On Jan 21, 2019, at 20:55, Alexis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jean-Christophe Helary <[email protected]> writes: > >> There are currently 2 picolisp modes for emacs, one is distributed with >> picolisp and the other is on melpa. Is there a reason for that ? > > Yes: > > https://github.com/melpa/melpa/issues/2514 > > One of the MELPA maintainers said in that thread: > > If the time comes that users start saying that picolisp-mode > on MELPA should be the official version then lets cross that > road when we get there. > > If people here would now like me to rename my mode, i'd be happy to initiate > that process. > > > Alexis. > > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe Jean-Christophe Helary ----------------------------------------------- http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune
