emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: How to install documentation in sub-directory with Package VC?


From: Philip Kaludercic
Subject: Re: How to install documentation in sub-directory with Package VC?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:44:54 +0000

Okamsn <okamsn@protonmail.com> writes:

> On 2023-03-15 09:41 UTC, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>  >
>>> I believe a general fix would involve storing new or custom package
>>> specifications in a user option, which probably cannot be
>>> 'package-vc-selected-packages', similarly to
>>> `package-selected-packages'.
>>
>> I have made the change alluded to here, in the commit
>> 168165178f32fb4e20aea32858407921baf079f0, which has been pushed to the
>> emacs-29 branch.  This has also allowed for some other simplifications
>> to be made, which is nice.
>>
>> The above `package-vc-install' now works on my end, and I see the Loopy
>> manual listed under (dir)Top.
>>
>
> Thank you for making this change. With it, I see that the Info
> documentation was installed.
>
> When you write that "package-vc uses ELPA package specifications, which
> you can also pass to `package-vc-install'", does that disagree with the
> documentation of `package-vc-selected-packages', which states that for
> its arguments "all other keys are ignored"?

The "all other keys are ignored" is to be understood in the sense of
package-vc uses a subset of the keys that elpa-admin uses.  After
loading and initialising package-vc, you should in fact see a plist of
package specifications fetched from {Non,}GNU ELPA in
`package-vc--archive-spec-alist', which are used by package-vc if you
attempt to install a package using just a symbol.

> Are the keys used by the ELPA package specification documented in the
> manual? If not, I would like to list the keys accepted at the end of the
> Package VC manual page, take from here:
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/tree/README

Yes, exactly.

> I will write a patch for this, unless there is a reason to not do so.
> What do you think?

If you think it can be clarified, why not?



reply via email to

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