[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#59914: [GNU ELPA] Make use-package and bind-key into :core packages
From: |
Stefan Kangas |
Subject: |
bug#59914: [GNU ELPA] Make use-package and bind-key into :core packages |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Dec 2022 18:37:04 -0800 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> I think it will require manual intervention on `elpa.gnu.org` but I'll
> take care of that.
Great!
> 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)?
I think we could move bind-keys to lisp/emacs-lisp, if everybody agrees.
> 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?
You're right, it did not work without that addition. I've changed that
in the attached, now fully tested patch.
>> + ("use-package-ensure-system-package"
>> + :core ("lisp/use-package/use-package-ensure-system-package.el"))
>
> Why do we need this as a separate package?
Because it was like that on MELPA. I think we might as well not do
that.
The only nice thing I see is that it would stop `use-package' from
depending on `system-packages'. But I don't think that's a big issue,
and on the contrary doing that will make things simpler.
> 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".
I hope I managed to improve that with commit a9037aa8e8, thanks.
0001-elpa-packages-bind-key-use-package-Make-into-core-pa.patch
Description: Text Data