bug#59914: [GNU ELPA] Make use-package and bind-key into :core packages

[Stefan Monnier]

> Stefan, does this look okay and make sense to you?  Is pushing this all
> that is needed, or do we need some manual intervention in addition?

I think it will require manual intervention on `elpa.gnu.org` but I'll
take care of that.

> - ("bind-key"         :url "https://github.com/jwiegley/use-package";
> -  :ignored-files ("LICENSE" "doc" "Makefile*" "bind-chords.el" "use-package*"
> -                  "README.md" "NEWS.md") ;; These two are for use-package.
> -  :news "/dev/null"           ;l Don't use use-package' s `NEWS.md`.
> -  :auto-sync t)
> + ("bind-key"            :core "lisp/use-package/bind-key.el")

Looks fine.

> - ("use-package"              :url "https://github.com/jwiegley/use-package";
> -  :ignored-files ("LICENSE" "bind-*" "use-package-chords.el")
> -  :readme "README.md"
> -  :doc "use-package.texi"
> -  :news "NEWS.md"
> -  :auto-sync t)
> + ("use-package"
> +  :core ("lisp/use-package/use-package-core.el"
> +         "lisp/use-package/use-package-delight.el"
> +         "lisp/use-package/use-package-diminish.el"
> +         "lisp/use-package/use-package-ensure.el"
> +         "lisp/use-package/use-package-jump.el"
> +         "lisp/use-package/use-package-lint.el"
> +         "lisp/use-package/use-package.el")
> +  :doc "use-package.texi")

Can we use "lisp/use-package/" (and maybe the use `:ignored-files` to
strip out `bind-keys.el` or maybe even move `bind-keys.el` outside of
the `use-package` subdirectory)?

Also I suspect you need to add "doc/misc/use-package.texi" to `:core` in
order for the `:doc` to find the file.  Have you tried the above recipe?

> + ("use-package-ensure-system-package"
> +  :core ("lisp/use-package/use-package-ensure-system-package.el"))

Why do we need this as a separate package?

And while I'm here, I see in the doc:

    @lisp
    (use-package foo
      :ensure-system-package foo)
    @end lisp

    This will expect a global binary package to exist called @code{foo}.

Should we use another name than "binary package"?  In my part of the
world these things are usually called "executables" or "programs",
occasionally they're called "binaries" but I'd never heard them called
"binary packages".



        Stefan