Re: feature/package+vc 04c4c578c7 3/4: Allow for packages to be installed directly from VCS

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

Philip Kaludercic [2022-02-15 17:13:56] wrote:
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>> The -devel doesn't necessarily indicate that directly, I just meant it
>>> was worth somehow explicitly indicating that this is a VCS-package.
>> But what I'm saying is: why not put no "-*" at all, since that's what
>> `package.el` has been using so far for those cases (tho these had to be
>> "installed" by hand)?
> I get that, my question still remains.  Or to rephrase it, what is the
> advantage of displaying package names with the same names as the 
> directories they are found in?

Not sure what "display" has to do with it.  The name of the package is
beyond our control.  So the choice is not what to display but what name
to give to the directory.  `<pkg>` is a name that already works.
`<pkg>-devel` is a name that currently doesn't work.

In any case, this is not an important issue, I think (at least, as long
as "devel" is not a valid version name).

>>>> IIUC for those VCS-installed packages we generate the <pkg>-pkg.el file
>>>> ourselves, so it should be fairly easy to make sure that file provides
>>>> the needed info so we don't need to guess.
>>>
>>> Yes, but again, if I just clone a project into elpa/devel, this won't
>>> work.  It could be argued that this shouldn't be supported because it is
>>> a different issue, and the elpa/... directories maintained by
>>> package.el, but in that case I would like some other way to have
>>> package.el manage non-versioned local source.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.  Who&how does
>> "just clone a project into elpa/devel" and what do you mean by "elpa/devel"?
>
> What I meant was that all directories in ~/.emacs.d/elpa/devel could be
> automatically detected and loaded.

That's already the case if `~/.emacs.d/elpa/devel` is in
`package-directory-list`, so I don't understand how that relates to what
we're discussing.

> One case where this could be useful for anyone using submodules in
> a versioned configuration.

Again, I don't understand the relationship.  Maybe if you could give
a concrete example scenario?

>> BTW, I think we should choose some `package-<foo>-` prefix for the
>> vars&functions related to this new "install from VCS" functionality.
> If it is possible to extract the relevant functionality form package.el
> to package-<foo>.el, then of course, but I can also try to stick to this
> otherwise.  Do you think this should also include renaming package-fetch?

Yes.  Depending on how good "-<foo>-" is, we may want to add shorter
aliases, of course, but I think that using a `package-<foo>-` prefix
will help clarify the design.


        Stefan