Re: NonGNU ELPA: New package: taxy.el

[Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net>]

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

>> I'd like to submit taxy.el to NonGNU ELPA:
>
> Why not GNU ELPA?

Well, I'm not strictly opposed to that, but I'm not sure if I want to
require copyright assignment to accept contributions to it.  Of course,
I understand why Emacs itself does so, and I tend to agree with that,
but for my own packages, I'm not sure if it would be worth it.

For example, I maintain a variety of Emacs-related packages, and none of
them require CA.  So what if, several months from now, someone proposed
a contribution to taxy.el, and I forgot to ask for CA (because none of
my other packages do, and I'm not in the habit of even thinking about
that), and then it turned out they were unable to sign it?  Would I be
in trouble, or would the package be?

Anyway, if you want to convince me to use GNU ELPA instead, I'm willing
to listen.  :)

>> Following the nongnu README.org file, I was unable to test the "make
>> build/taxy" step, because apparently my version of git doesn't have the
>> "--no-track" argument to the "git worktree" command (and upgrading git
>> manually is more than I want to do at the moment ;).  But I assume that
>> it will work correctly, because everything seems to be in order.
>
> Sorry 'bout that dependency.  I could try and lift it, but then again
> I had to upgrade the `git` on `elpa.gnu.org` because some of the
> commands used hit bugs that caused it crash and those uses are hard to
> eliminate, so I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

Of course, no problem.  I'll get mine upgraded at some point.

>> 1.  I didn't see anything about "externals" in the nongnu readme.
>> Forgive me, because this has probably been rehashed many times here, but
>> do I need to specify that manually, or is that the default for the
>> nongnu repo?  I do intend to maintain the package in my own repo.
>
> That's the assumption when you have `:url "...."` in the spec, yes.

Great, thanks.

>> 2.  I currently have the version header on "0.1-pre".  Do I need to use
>> a "non-pre" version number in order for the package to be built and
>> published on (nongnu) ELPA?
>
> Yes.  The "0.1-pre" version will still appear in the ..-devel archive
> (where we always build the latest revision regardless of the version
> number), but not in the main one.

That sounds good to me, thanks.  I'll probably tag a 0.1 soon enough.