From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philip Kaludercic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Adding the `prescient` packages to NonGNU ELPA? Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 09:17:53 +0000 Message-ID: <877cyq5qym.fsf@posteo.net> References: <16193c73-ab80-04c9-558f-d5e6142f38f3@protonmail.com> <871qpydllo.fsf@posteo.net> <874jutft6g.fsf@gmail.com> <87pmcj2lsg.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29000"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: North Year , Visuwesh , Okamsn , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 17 10:18:56 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1p6TLL-0007Hg-TD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 10:18:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6TKT-0003GR-Pp; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 04:18:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6TKR-0003GD-PH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 04:17:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6TKM-00082U-C8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 04:17:59 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12E7E24002B for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 10:17:50 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1671268671; bh=aG/p3sszsLp0Kca+dB0yOn4+7eaowe+5VoaFruAc3+w=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=XCj0p0ip/BCW3dFz8MWLedg8Dx5as2K3BajstKf0bawpoI67anfjTpG1YauQS0Oqb NeBmQ16nshB42Wj9iUMDq/kb8pcvyk5E2K41Pgys7UUDkvCylPsEG1vGSv2EKdeuMY +tiG6dnXQdwijOhIS4kbO3rUfM+4MD5E7fEG8VfVGTUabDHkL8Mh27pJ8g8RxrBV8E RYsmq9/CdhN+YdQ3mFPZbgvzsaz7LiZ+nNNeDIXUyIznccGpP2nt4IRZZL3cDzSXE+ d4rczF4Yrf6aywnkQ/89KhsG0YGFQ+uj9UuUOM4nxhzIskh/rOy2HBirQ93aUj9wri eGw9hr5ITEcTg== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4NZ0k604SVz9rxD; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 10:17:49 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:28:22 -0500") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:301550 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier 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.