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 18:08:39 +0000 Message-ID: <87len56gyg.fsf@posteo.net> References: <16193c73-ab80-04c9-558f-d5e6142f38f3@protonmail.com> <871qpydllo.fsf@posteo.net> <874jutft6g.fsf@gmail.com> <87pmcj2lsg.fsf@posteo.net> <877cyq5qym.fsf@posteo.net> <87pmcivwrq.fsf@posteo.net> <87iliavw08.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="30459"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Monnier , North Year , Visuwesh , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Okamsn Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 17 19:09:05 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 1p6bcP-0007hR-AC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 19:09:05 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6bc7-0007aE-FE; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:08:47 -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 1p6bc5-0007Zx-Vd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:08:45 -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 1p6bc3-00016Z-L7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:08:45 -0500 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 486D3240027 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 19:08:38 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1671300521; bh=RhCwkOT9ohpukxKSwxExIpW9BRyO8lIAWBwlHyW6YjM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=eRWeTCs6Ia8zFNg9GFsaFN4YxePmKjCgiRLSG8AMaZDLs+KqFEVBW05BM/1SWufjr 15UvZ2U5b28N9ncjsm8CWft/z4eZPdZJ3ZrwAH8bzyr/uCp/Ki9qbRzpnLhmZ8Zymy oXLRUZQiXJPuQN3hw9JzFB4YjNiKJe7X+8bJNQ7Fub4C0Hz+FtDHniGA1/HvinRoNF sqpaJCzL+gJ5k5/rTjhEGNK5hRinO0VS7SENaVvanwacB+Pa3J5/IVZznDOzpk0T2S 6yuDFsp6WK8JvF9ChYUtQtjcpunu1b4IOq8HXCz2bMl19YwklzcEUr/IwxJoViNHyX T+HqeU3TPFdkQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4NZDVY6VHJz6trW; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 19:08:35 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (okamsn@protonmail.com's message of "Sat, 17 Dec 2022 18:01:18 +0000") 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:301578 Archived-At: Okamsn writes: > On 2022-12-17 16:24 UTC, Philip Kaludercic wrote: >> Philip Kaludercic writes: >> >>> Stefan Monnier writes: >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Not our problem? >>> >>> So let it be written, so let it be done. >>> >>> I will prepare the package with everything bundled into a single >>> package, and see if that works out. >> >> As I had suspected, the main issue is that byte-compilation fails: >> ... >> But I guess this can be resolved upstream, if there is an interest. > > The extension packages each require the version of the UI that they work > with. I think it is reasonable to do that, and I don't foresee the other > maintainers wanting to change that. > > Is there a way to fix this while still declaring the extension packages' > requirements? In practice, will this be a problem? As you can see in the -pkg.el file, so the other packages won't be added to the list by defaut: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- ;; Generated package description from prescient.el -*- no-byte-compile: t -*- (define-package "prescient" "6.1.0" "Better sorting and filtering" '((emacs "25.1")) :commit nil :authors '(("Radian LLC" . "contact+prescient@radian.codes")) :maintainer '("Radian LLC" . "contact+prescient@radian.codes") :keywords '("extensions") :url "https://github.com/raxod502/prescient.el") --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- If loaded, an error will be raised.