[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: Alain Schneble
Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:24:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (windows-nt)

address@hidden (Phillip Lord) writes:

> Alain Schneble <address@hidden> writes:
>> There's also d) where an elpa package would just go into it's
>> corresponding directory under EMACS/lisp, e.g. EMACS/lisp/org if org is
>> an elpa package.  Of course, there's a chance of name clashes here, but
>> both GNU Emacs and GNU elpa are under the same control IIUC.
> Would require us to keep track of which packages are package.el format
> and which packages are not, spread throughout multiple directories. As

It should be rather easy to have a convention that can reliably be used
to derive whether a given file or directory is in package.el format.
Maybe there's already one?  Or use a file-local variable as Eli
proposed?  So I think we get it nearly for "free".  Or what do you mean
by "keeping track of"?

> well as making the build a PITA (and fragile when we forget to update
> the list), it would be confusing for the developers who would have to
> remember two different sets of package structures.

I can't judge the build part of this, but I don't really see why it's a
PITA.  I also don't see what we would have to update additionally in
this layout that we wouldn't have to in a), b) and c).

Whether it's confusing or not -- well you will find arguments against
all proposed approaches.  I think d) is easier because it doesn't divide
elisp source code based on where the sources actually come from.

When I looked into GNU Emacs sources the first time, I very much
appreciated the IMO minimalistic directory structure.  I would try to
not loose it if I could.


reply via email to

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