Re: Adding the `prescient` packages to NonGNU ELPA?

[Philip Kaludercic]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> Why `prescient`, `company-prescient`, `corfu-prescient`,
>>> `vertico-prescient` need to be separate packages? Can't they bundle
>>> together as a single package? Eglot has additional support for
>>> company
>>> despite that company isn't a builtin package yet, and eglot doesn't
>>> have
>>> a `company-eglot` additional package.
>>
>> This has already been discussed in the thread, and it appears the head
>> maintainer is opposed to this approach.  I think it is a pity, as you
>> say it usually is not problem to add optional support for a package
>> that
>> may or may not be installed (bbdb is another example that does this
>> well).
>
> Is there anything that would prevent us from packaging all the files in
> a single tarball?

The only issue I can think about is if later on someone else wants to
add a package that depends on a specific "sub-package", and they find
themselves in a conflict specifying their dependency list, in case this
hypothetical package is to be distributed both via ELPA and MELPA.