Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: flymake-guile

[Distopico]

On 2023-08-31, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:

> Distopico <distopico@riseup.net> writes:
>
>> On 2023-08-31, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Distopico <distopico@riseup.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hi all!
>>>>
>>>> I'm the author of a new package `flymake-guile` and I
>>>> would like to include it in Nongnu ELPA.
>>>
>>> Just to be sure, you are sure you don't want to include your package in
>>> GNU ELPA?
>>>
>>>> Here the repo: https://framagit.org/flymake-backends/flymake-guile
>>>
>>> I am not familiar with the "flymake-quickdef" package, but it doesn't
>>> seem to be much shorter than just defining a regular flymake backend.
>>> As there have been some discussions wrt providing a kind of DSL for
>>> Flymake backends, I am not sure if adding flymake-quickdef would be that
>>> constructive at this point.  Would you consider updating your package to
>>> not use the dependency?  You can check out other flymake-... modes in
>>> GNU and NonGNU ELPA for inspiration.
>>>
>> Thank you for your feedback, For now I'm fine sending it to NonGNU ELPA,
>> and for now I would like to keep `flymake-quickdef`, I have plans to
>> write other backend and I don't wanna repeat the same validations and
>> code over and over, I'll switch to the DLS when it is implemented.
>
> FWIW it already exists in this form 
> https://github.com/mohkale/flymake-collection.
>
> And just to make sure, you are certain you want to implement this on top
> of a DSL?  I have to admit that I am really not a fan of the way that
> flymake-quickdef is implemented, but one redeeming feature appears to be
> that you could macroexpand it away, then clean the code up.
>

flymake-collection use an adaptation of flymake-quickdef[1], that is
a macro similar to the quickdef one[2], could be use quickdef a blocker
to add the package on NonGNU ELPA?

>>>> ;;; Commentary:
>>>>
>>>> ;; Flymake backend for GNU Guile using `guild' compile.
>>>> ;;
>>>> ;; Usage:
>>>> ;;   (require 'flymake-guile)
>>>> ;;   (add-hook 'scheme-mode-hook 'flymake-guile)
>>>
>>> It would probably make sense to autoload the `flymake-guile' function,
>>> so that it is not necessary to require it in a user configuration.
>>>
>> It already have autoload, I just update the commentary there.
>
> 1+
>
>>>
>>> Are you sure the README.md is right thing to include here?  It includes
>>> installation instructions, that are usually redundant when you install
>>> the package using package.el.  I would recommend writing out the
>>> "Commentary" section in flymake-guile.el with a brief description of
>>> what package and its entry points.
>>>
>>> Also, the package appears to include files that needn't be distributed
>>> in the release tarball, such as .envrc and guix.scm.  It would be nice
>>> if you could track these and future files of this type in a .elpaignore
>>> file, to instruct the build server that they should be removed before
>>> packaging.
>>>
>> Updated in the last version ignoring those file and removing the README
>> declaration.
>>
>> Thank you!
>
> Distopico <distopico@riseup.net> writes:
>
>> v1 -> v2: Remove unnecesary README and ignore files.
>>
>>
>> From 1f683e46e59f5ebff923b493aa911e489ecd7bb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Distopico <distopico@riseup.net>
>> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:53:27 -0500
>> Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] * elpa-packages (flymake-guile): New package
>>
>> ---
>>  elpa-packages | 3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/elpa-packages b/elpa-packages
>> index 93e7c38600..e80486aec6 100644
>> --- a/elpa-packages
>> +++ b/elpa-packages
>> @@ -223,6 +223,9 @@
>>   (flymake-quickdef      :url 
>> "https://github.com/karlotness/flymake-quickdef.git";
>>    :readme "README.md")
>>  
>> + (flymake-guile             :url 
>> "https://framagit.org/flymake-backends/flymake-guile.git";
>> +  :ignored-files (".envrc" "guix.scm"))
>
> It would be preferable to track this information in your own repository,
> instead of having to update the info in the future in elpa-packages.
>
> Also, it is totally fine to add both packages in a single patch.
I will keep it in mind in the future., thank you

Footnotes:
[1]  https://github.com/mohkale/flymake-collection#flymake-quickdef

[2]  
https://github.com/mohkale/flymake-collection/blob/release/src/flymake-collection-define.el#L134

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature