6 ms·

Is there a clearer more understandable word? Your definition of 'distribution' sounds like something much more specific (changes to binaries?) than mine.

• clhodapp 10y ago
  At risk of putting words in the another poster's mouth, I don't think the idea was that a distribution needs to have changes to binaries, just that it has to include the whole thing. I think the notion is that since you don't get your build of Emacs as part of Spacemacs, Spacemacs isn't a distribution of Emacs. I tend to agree. I think it could be a distribution of Emacs even if it were just upstream Emacs plus a simple conf file, but the key is that it has to include the thing it is a distribution of.
  • eriknstr 10y ago
    This seems to be a reasonable definition of distribution.
  • syl20bnr 10y ago
    More info on this here: https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs/blob/master/doc/FAQ.org#why-do-you-call-this-a-distribution-i-dont-see-any-spacemacs-executable https://github.com/syl20bnr/spacemacs/blob/master/doc/FAQ.or... Can found more explanations on reddit for the bravest :-)
    • wsdjeg 10y ago
      Thanks for reply. I like your idea of spacemacs. and what do you think of SpaceVim
  • jasonm23 10y ago
    Thank you for filling in the blanks. You pretty much summed up my definition. I can only guess at the reason why Spacemacs team chooses this term, but there is one simple problem with it. Users of Spacemacs are encouraged (by this naming quirk) to treat it as somehow essentially different to Emacs. That's wrong. It would be of benefit to all for the code that comprises Spacemacs (layers mainly) to be released as packages. It would place greater emphasis on Emacs as the actual core product, and allow people to use and collaborate on smaller chunks of Spacemacs, without the monolith problem.