[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: package-vc support for :files keyword
From: |
Philip Kaludercic |
Subject: |
Re: package-vc support for :files keyword |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Jun 2023 13:23:28 +0000 |
Daniel Fleischer <danflscr@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi, I've been testing package-vc support in Emacs 29. It's clear that
> this feature is inspired by 3rd party packages that help users install
> packages from external forges.
I have never used any of the other packages managers, primarily because
they seem to peruse different goals. The primary motivation for
package-vc is to make it easy to hack on packages that are already
available on an ELPA and contribute these changes upstream via commands
like `package-vc-prepare-patch'. The fact that it can be used as the
primary method for package.el to fetch sources is an "unintended"
consequence.
> Also, it makes sense that the Melpa
> recipe specification compatibility is not a goal.
Right, as the primary technical inspiration for package-vc has been
elpa-admin, and therefore we (re-)use GNU ELPA-style package
specifications.
> However, I do think
> the `:files' keyword is very useful to have, and was wondering whether
> it's planned, maybe in master?
No, just like `:ignored-files' I do not see a sensible way to implement
it without compromising on the primary goal mentioned above. Generally
speaking, this is a style of package development that {GNU,NonGNU} ELPA
would like to advise against perusing, in favour of a
one-repo-per-package approach. Do you have a specific reason why you
think that something like `:{ignored-,}files' are useful in general
(i.e. not just because of the contingent fact that MELPA has popularised
this form of development).
But just like :make and :shell-command, or use-package support was not
intended in the beginning, I don't insist on anything as long as a
good compromise can be found. I just have my doubts, since supporting
this would probably run against a number of basic assumptions that
package-vc was written around.
> Thanks,