Re: Updating the "ELPA Protocol"

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> I think we'd need more details and concrete examples to judge how best
>> handle such renamings.  The problem I see is that in Emacs, names are
>> very visible: the package name almost inevitably affect the ELisp
>> files's names, which themselves affect the functions and vars defined
>> therein.
>>
>> For that reason handling the renaming only in ELPA is rarely sufficient.
>> And also for that reason, renamings are rare.
>
> From what I know this happens from time to time on MELPA.  The changes
> usually have to be backwards-compatible or the renames must be trivial
> (a change like "foo" -> "foo-mode" or vice versa).

Interesting.  It would be great to have a (more or less exhaustive) list
of renamings that took place in MELPA.

> True, but I can imagine it causing confusion, when you find the actually
> selected package being empty and the real package listed as a "mere"
> dependency.

I don't find it particularly confusing in Debian, because the new empty
package usually describes itself fairly clearly as some kind of
"transition package" where it say gives instructions on how to go about
it (that you can remove it, etc..).


        Stefan