[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CVS is the `released version'
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: CVS is the `released version' |
Date: |
Sun, 20 May 2007 13:05:21 -0400 |
It seems wasteful to have a file just for this define-package. Why
not get the info out of the .el files just as for a one-file package?
It could look at all the .el files and verify that they all agree. If
they don't, it could print an error message. If it finds different
package names in various files, it could treat them as separate packages.
I think this would in most cases simplify the packaging.
- Re: package.el, (continued)
- Re: package.el, David Reitter, 2007/05/21
- Re: package.el, Tom Tromey, 2007/05/21
- Re: package.el, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2007/05/21
- Re: package.el, Stefan Monnier, 2007/05/22
- Re: CVS is the `released version', Richard Stallman, 2007/05/19
- Re: CVS is the `released version', Tom Tromey, 2007/05/19
- Re: CVS is the `released version',
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: CVS is the `released version', Tom Tromey, 2007/05/20
- Re: CVS is the `released version', Stefan Monnier, 2007/05/21
- Re: CVS is the `released version', David Kastrup, 2007/05/21
- Re: CVS is the `released version', Stefan Monnier, 2007/05/21
- Re: CVS is the `released version', Tom Tromey, 2007/05/21
- Re: CVS is the `released version', Richard Stallman, 2007/05/22
- Re: CVS is the `released version', Trent Buck, 2007/05/22
- Re: CVS is the `released version', David Kastrup, 2007/05/22
- Re: CVS is the `released version', Richard Stallman, 2007/05/24
Re: CVS is the `released version', Lukasz Stafiniak, 2007/05/10