Re: Why 'define-package' marked obsolete?

[dalanicolai <dalanicolai@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3568 bytes --]

I have now looked at that manual, but I am not sure if I fully understand
it.
But I will find out when trying again to create the multi-file package soon.

Thanks again for now!

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 18:15, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:

> dalanicolai <dalanicolai@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Thanks for the explanation...
> >
> >
> >> No, the -pkg.el file is generated by ELPA using the information from the
> >> main file.  There is no need to write it yourself, in fact it is a waste
> >> effort since it will be overwritten anyway.  Package-vc does the same
> >> btw.
> >>
> >
> > I was trying to create a multi-file package, but before submitting it to
> > elpa-devel, I was testing locally if I did things correctly. So I
> defined a
> > 'local archive' in a directory, then uploaded the .tar file to that
> > directory/archive, and then checked if installing worked. When doing
> > this, it seemed necessary to create the -pkg.el file manually.
>
> The best way to test it would be to check out elpa.git from
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git and follow the manual
> in there.
>
> But unless you did something unusual, I would expect it to work (and if
> it doesn't, someone here will be able to say why and how to fix it).
>
> > Anyway, I understand things better now.
> >
> > Thanks again!
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 10:35, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> dalanicolai <dalanicolai@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Ah okay, I see.
> >> >
> >> > So I assume that this means that as a function 'define-package' was
> >> > redundant, but we should still include a 'define-package' in the
> >> > -pkg.el file of a multi file package?
> >>
> >> No, the -pkg.el file is generated by ELPA using the information from the
> >> main file.  There is no need to write it yourself, in fact it is a waste
> >> effort since it will be overwritten anyway.  Package-vc does the same
> >> btw.
> >>
> >> > The initial comment of 'package.el' mentions that the -pkg.el file
> >> > should consist of 'a call to' define-package. I would say this
> >> > formulation is somewhat confusing/misleading then?
> >>
> >> You are right, that comment is outdated and should be revised.
> >>
> >> > Or is the -pkg.el file just outdated? And did I miss the news about
> it?
> >>
> >> No, the file is still required because it contains the package
> >> descriptor.  The only thing that changed is that instead of the contents
> >> being evaluated as code, they are read in and processed manually.
> >> Without that file, you will notice that `package-load-descriptor'
> >> wouldn't add the package to `package-alist', which in turn means that
> >> `package--activate-all' wouldn't activate it.
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 20:32, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> From: dalanicolai <dalanicolai@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 17:21:04 +0100
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Can I ask why 'define-package' was marked obsolete?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It never did anything useful.  Its original implementation just
> >> >> > signaled an error.
> >> >>
> >> >> I just looked up the definition from when package.el was merged[0],
> and
> >> it
> >> >> did stuff, mainly modifying `package-alist'.
> >> >>
> >> >> [0]
> >> >>
> >>
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el?id=44198b6ee97bcb0ac88a5cadd1bf9b62048d0156#n513
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Philip Kaludercic
> >> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Philip Kaludercic
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5461 bytes --]