From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alain Schneble Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:24:29 +0200 Message-ID: <8637kh4j1u.fsf@realize.ch> References: <20160916203414.25203.87032@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87vaxsjmvu.fsf@russet.org.uk> <878tunj2wr.fsf@russet.org.uk> <874m582ixv.fsf@russet.org.uk> <871t0apsxm.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87shsm7hi6.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83a8eucwi2.fsf@gnu.org> <878tudgwlq.fsf@russet.org.uk> <8360pgoyo4.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1jn3ws9.fsf@russet.org.uk> <83a8eqoi08.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1jlacsh.fsf@russet.org.uk> <867f9t4n4t.fsf@realize.ch> <874m4x8sq5.fsf@russet.org.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1475242034 20642 195.159.176.226 (30 Sep 2016 13:27:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:27:14 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (windows-nt) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Phillip Lord Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 30 15:27:08 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bpxq5-0003PW-Ud for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:26:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44532 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpxq4-0004FW-D6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:26:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58505) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpxpH-0004ES-Ho for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:26:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpxpG-0006v6-4Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:26:07 -0400 Original-Received: from clientmail.realize.ch ([46.140.89.53]:4444) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpxpA-0006sW-Vc; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:26:01 -0400 Original-Received: from rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (Unknown [192.168.0.105]) by clientmail.realize.ch with ESMTP ; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:25:03 +0200 Original-Received: from myngb (192.168.66.64) by rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (192.168.0.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.516.32; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:24:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <874m4x8sq5.fsf@russet.org.uk> (Phillip Lord's message of "Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:41:54 +0100") X-ClientProxiedBy: rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (192.168.0.105) To rintintin.hq.realize.ch.lan.rit (192.168.0.105) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Windows NT kernel [generic] X-Received-From: 46.140.89.53 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:207920 Archived-At: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes: > Alain Schneble writes: >> >> There's also d) where an elpa package would just go into it's >> corresponding directory under EMACS/lisp, e.g. EMACS/lisp/org if org is >> an elpa package. Of course, there's a chance of name clashes here, but >> both GNU Emacs and GNU elpa are under the same control IIUC. > > Would require us to keep track of which packages are package.el format > and which packages are not, spread throughout multiple directories. As It should be rather easy to have a convention that can reliably be used to derive whether a given file or directory is in package.el format. Maybe there's already one? Or use a file-local variable as Eli proposed? So I think we get it nearly for "free". Or what do you mean by "keeping track of"? > well as making the build a PITA (and fragile when we forget to update > the list), it would be confusing for the developers who would have to > remember two different sets of package structures. I can't judge the build part of this, but I don't really see why it's a PITA. I also don't see what we would have to update additionally in this layout that we wouldn't have to in a), b) and c). Whether it's confusing or not -- well you will find arguments against all proposed approaches. I think d) is easier because it doesn't divide elisp source code based on where the sources actually come from. When I looked into GNU Emacs sources the first time, I very much appreciated the IMO minimalistic directory structure. I would try to not loose it if I could. Alain