Re: [ELPA] Package proposal: EBDB

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> Aha! Thank you, that's what I was missing. It seems to have worked, I
>> guess I'll know for sure when the package gets built.
>
> I just noticed the following issues:
> - You use oset-default on instance fields.  This used to work in earlier
>   EIEIO and still mostly work now thanks to a hack, but it creates
>   a weird/adhoc semantics in terms of interaction with the :initform, so
>   I'd like to get rid of this backward compatibility.

Huh, interesting. Is that function completely deprecated, or still
usable for class-allocated slots?

> - ebdb-vm and ebdb-mu4e will break the compilation of the package if the
>   user doesn't have VM and mu4e installed.
>
> The appended patch tries to fix those two, but please take a look at it
> to make sure it still works correctly (especially the ebdb-vm part is
> quick&dirty, leaving a lot of warnings when VM is not installed, some
> of them may be real bugs).

I thought about extracting those two into separate packages, and
probably should have done that. I pulled all the other libraries that
depended on non-core packages into their own separate packages, and I
don't know why I didn't do that for these two.

Actually, I do know: vm and mu4e aren't installable via the package
manager. If I make separate packages, and put a package-requires header
in them for vm and mu4e, will package.el be satisfied if a user has
installed them via other means? Or will it bark?

Another option would be a boatload of (autoload 'function "ext:vm")
statements.

I'll make your other changes, and maybe just pull ebdb-vm and ebdb-mu4e
for now, pending further thought.

>> Assuming all goes well, can I push this documentation patch to ELPA?
>
> Yes, please do, thank you,

Will do.

Thanks,
Eric