Re: Question regarding load-path handling for ELPA packages

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

Xiyue Deng <manphiz@gmail.com> writes:

> > [...] doesn't add subdirectories recursively.  Or does it?
> This is the content of subdirs.el:
>
> ,----
> | (if (fboundp 'normal-top-level-add-subdirs-to-load-path)
> |     (normal-top-level-add-subdirs-to-load-path))
> `----

Ok indeed - `normal-top-level-add-to-load-path'
vs. `normal-top-level-add-subdirs-to-load-path', I see.


> [...] With this support dh-elpa can keep the same directory layout as
> ELPA for package with source files in nested directories as well.

I see.  Then I think the more you mimic (or call) what package.el does
the saver you are.

> > Any package still can add subdirectories explicitly.  In sum I see
> > more disadvantages.
>
> I agree with you arguments here.  My initial thoughts for adding
> subdirectories are mainly to give developer some flexibilities to
> organize the source code, but if subdirectories can be added explicitly
> then it's fine.  Do you know where how that's done is documented for
> ELPA?

Sorry, no, and I didn't find anything.  Could be that it's undocumented.
At least I did not find an explicit description of how subdirectories of
the content directory are handled.


Michael.