Re: documentation incorrect for function `define-package'?

[Michelangelo Rodriguez <michelangelo.rodriguez@gmail.com>]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:


> This is its current definition:
>
>     (defun define-package ( _name-string _version-string
>                             &optional _docstring _requirements
>                             &rest _extra-properties)
>       "Define a new package.
>     NAME-STRING is the name of the package, as a string.
>     VERSION-STRING is the version of the package, as a string.
>     DOCSTRING is a short description of the package, a string.
>     REQUIREMENTS is a list of dependencies on other packages.
>      Each requirement is of the form (OTHER-PACKAGE OTHER-VERSION),
>      where OTHER-VERSION is a string.
>
>     EXTRA-PROPERTIES is currently unused."
>       ;; FIXME: Placeholder!  Should we keep it?
>       (error "Don't call me!"))
>
> On the one hand, this function is clearly not intended for use.
>
> On the other hand, where else do we document the `define-package' list
> that goes in "foo-pkg.el"?
>
> Those definitions look like this, but again this is just data (the
> "package.el" Commentary section incorrectly says "'PACKAGE-pkg.el' which
> consists of a *call* to define-package", my emphasis):
>
> (define-package "which-key" "20210824.11" "Display available
> keybindings in popup" '((emacs "24.4")) :commit
> "4790a14683a2f3e4f72ade197c78e4c0af1cdd4b" :authors '(("Justin
> Burkett" . "justin@burkett.cc")) :maintainer '("Justin Burkett" .
> "justin@burkett.cc") :url
> "https://github.com/justbur/emacs-which-key")
So, in my actual understanding of how the package system works, actually
<package>-pkg.el is generated by an authomation when that package is
installed from elpa or another archive?
I think that because i try to install a local package in which i'm
working and if i try to install it by using `package-install-file' and i
don't specify various keywords to `define-package' then
`describe-package' does'nt report correctly some information.
so, which is the "correct way " to test the package?