Re: Operation "Fat Emacs"

Ernesto CENUSA <[email protected]> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <[email protected]> writes:
>> No, I am not aware of any plans in that direction.  That has the
>> inherent issue that packages would suddenly stop working if they depend
>> on some part that a more minimal Emacs would throw out.  That being
>> said, the point has been raised that having a tighter binding between
>> the core and GNU ELPA would not only make it easier for packages to be
>> added to the core, but also to move to ELPA if the opinion is that they
>> would be better maintained there.
>
>
>
> Thanks. That makes sense: there is indeed a risk of breaking packages that depend on parts removed from a more minimal Emacs.
>
> At the same time, I wonder if that could also be useful as a way to
> make Emacs' internal dependencies clearer, and perhaps make its
> architecture more modular, understandable, and predictable over time.
>
> It could maybe start in a very incremental way, by trying to remove
> obviously self-contained pieces first and seeing what breaks. Even if
> that only reveals tightly entangled dependency clusters, that would
> still be useful: at least those could be identified, documented, and
> perhaps disentangled later.

I'd say that is an orthogonal project that can be pursued in parallel.
There is certainly some synergy between the two goals, but no
dependency.  Eventually, but I honestly think that this could take a
_while_, it could serve as the foundation for a properly leaner Emacs
distribution.