[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Fetching or installing package dev source from VCS: manual style

From: Philip Kaludercic
Subject: Re: Fetching or installing package dev source from VCS: manual style
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 06:58:02 +0000

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>   > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>   > @node Package from Source
>   > @section Package from Source
>   > @cindex package development source
>   > @cindex package upstream source
>   > @cindex package git source @c "git" is not technically correct
> That improves the @cindex commands.  But please look at the whole
> manual's index and see where these two show up.  If two of them appear
> close together, there is no need for both.  If they are separated  by
> several other commands, then it is useful to have both.

3 matches for "Package from Source" in buffer: *info*
   1511:* package development source:            Package from Source.
   1515:* package git source:                    Package from Source.
   1525:* package upstream source:               Package from Source.

They seem close-by, so I am not sure if it is worth it.

> I used to check the whole index for redundant index entries like this
> before each Emacs release.

I have to admit that I have never used the concept index directly.

>   > @findex package-vc-install
>   >   One way to do this is to use @code{package-vc-install}, to fetch the
>   > source code for a package directly from source.
> I contend that `package-dev-source' or `package-upstream-source'
> is a better name than `package-vc-install'.

So would you have the entire package renamed?  I guess "package-vc" or
"package-dev" aren't that different, and I'm fine with both names.

> They are better because they describe the crucial difference for which
> you would use that command: to get the development source rather than
> the current release source.  It is true that the development source
> will usually come from a VCS, but that's an secondary detail, not the
> crucial point.
> The current version's source may be stored in a VCS also.  Isn't that
> normally the case for NonGNU ELPA?


reply via email to

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