Re: [Emacs-diffs] feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added

[Alain Schneble <a.s@realize.ch>]

phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes:

> Alain Schneble <a.s@realize.ch> writes:
>
>> phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes:
>>
>>> Just what you think, yes. We need to distinguish between the two
>>> formats. Putting them different directories, with different make files
>>> is a trivial way to achieve this.
>>
>> FWIW, if there is a strict naming and folder mapping convention, just by
>> looking at the list of ELPA-in-core package _names_, one can derive
>> which files belong to which package.  So an explicit "tagging" might not
>> even be required at all.
>>
>> But I do not really understand when exactly we have to distinguish
>> between the two formats.  Isn't it more like a one way extraction of
>> ELPA package into core and then the job is done and distinction doesn't
>> really matter anymore?
>
> Not if we are using package.el to make the packages available. It is
> package.el which sets the load path, loads the autoloads file, that sort
> of thing.

After all, what would we gain from using package.el to do this
bootstrapping for the ELPA core packages?  If I understand correctly,
finder.el does populate package--builtins already today, based on the
files and directories in ./lisp.  Just automatically fetching all ELPA
core packages from the corresponding git repository (or repositories?),
extracting and moving files to the proper Emacs directories wouldn't
require any (or much) additional logic on that level.  Do I miss
something here?

>>> I understand that. But, unless we do something complex tests,
>>> documentation, icons, subsidiary files and so forth will be in different
>>> places for one style of packages than for the other.
>>
>> Don't know if that really matters.  Well it would if we wouldn't put
>> resource files such as icons, subsidiary files and so forth at the same
>> location as the *.el files.  As packages may use 'load-file-name' to
>> locate these files.  FWIW, I would keep them next to the *.el files.
>
> So would I, but that is not the directory layout for core. It is for package.el.

I would still move tests into ./test/automated/, for example.  And now
if I think of it, it would probably make sense to move resource files
(static data such as icons, schemas etc.) into ./etc/ and not into
./lisp/?  Is that where such files of non-ELPA, built-in libraries are
put in Emacs today?

Alain