Re: package and testing rant (was Re: package.el, auto-installation, and auto-removal)

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> that package.  So the first question to decide would be if elpa.git is a
>> source archive or a package archive.
>
> I want it to be a source archive.
>
>
>> In words, the package and version file, a separate autoload file that
>> Org needs (in addition to the autoload file that later gets created on
>> the users' machine)
>
> The org-pkg.el file is nowadays built by the GNU ELPA scripts (there's
> even a special exception in this script specifically for Org, which is
> the only package where this file is not auto-built yet).
>
> What is the "version" file?
>
> Can you give further details on this extra autoload file?
>
>> and the documentation all need to be created before packaging
>> things up.
>
> Right, the doc-generation is a step that's clearly lacking in the
> current GNU ELPA scripts.

Is the intent to build the docs on the GNU ELPA server, and include them
in the tarball?

Or to build them on the user's machine?

I'm guessing the former, to avoid burdening users with tools. That
requires standardizing the tools that the Gnu ELPA server provides.

What will we do when packages start including source code for Emacs
dynamic modules (ie curl, ada-mode parser)? That introduces
user-specific parameters like OS, machine architecture, compiler
version, etc.

I've suggested one solution; use the existing (non-Emacs) OS packaging
systems for those binaries; that avoids the issue for GNU ELPA.

-- 
-- Stephe