From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Adding the `prescient` packages to NonGNU ELPA? Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:28:22 -0500 Message-ID: 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="3829"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: North Year , Visuwesh , Okamsn , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 17 04:28:56 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 1p6Nsd-0000md-7U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 04:28:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6NsE-0008Oy-8z; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:28:30 -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 1p6NsD-0008Op-5Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:28:29 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6NsB-00039q-QD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:28:28 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 760E91007F3; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:28:26 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BED1B10064E; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:28:24 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1671247704; bh=NNwp7QtBwWAnh9K/LJ/Pk6rNGKzc4gQnOZ1Y5rHh9v4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=QTDhjcMduW0GIxnNyDla5yc9Vkf0A2RVDl75MI0wVCRu7AFDnvozW0KQsezUl4P1e AmlYMRY+YLz0unc4T7ESdu3eBjigKEcOsQwOXn7BAGtwr+TiihV6FxSbmd3p1/15JY Q9DLQaNBfC/FbBLDKysBuBemaYYp7fmYlu1vTqRxLP3M7r7f+l2o01MDhDsjAUdmbH 8X63QhsBwyZSOOYgJ7ZTNpTMU+YG8KsHqap913kPivkgXHJSzFyIBUTmvic5ukbEiF GW1t/rl+aB2p4GXF+vo8aLT8bRPyg3/03yovDcNqxJIcYcGQjrKUI0qLotmwhvn4Vl Sv/EpKpKWa5Xw== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.193.52]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7732912097A; Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:28:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87pmcj2lsg.fsf@posteo.net> (Philip Kaludercic's message of "Fri, 16 Dec 2022 19:25:35 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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:301538 Archived-At: >> 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? Stefan