[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Emacs-diffs] feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:02:19 +0300

> From: address@hidden (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:01:53 +0100
> > Why does it have to be a separate directory?  Why cannot those
> > packages be downloaded into their current places, where they belong in
> > one of the subdirectories of lisp/?
> The build process is different. I use package.el to compile, and to
> build the autoloads and the -pkg.el file. This could be done in the lisp
> directory, but I'd have to exclude this directory from the normal build
> process in the lisp directory.

Can't we handle the differences during the build without separating
directories?  E.g., we already have some files that should not be
byte-compiled, and we handle it with a file-local variable.  Can't we
do something similar with this issue?

> I'm not at all wedded to the directory structure. This is just a
> proof-of-principle. It can be what ever we want. Is there a problem with
> introducing a new top level?

It's not a catastrophe, but it runs the risk of raising the annoyance
level when looking for a certain file.  Already there are some Lisp
files for which I never know in what subdirectory they should live.
Having yet another subtree will make things worse, since there's no
way of knowing up front whether a file is in core or not.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]