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

> I think it will require manual intervention on `elpa.gnu.org` but I'll
> take care of that.

Great!

> Can we use "lisp/use-package/" (and maybe the use `:ignored-files` to
> strip out `bind-keys.el` or maybe even move `bind-keys.el` outside of
> the `use-package` subdirectory)?

I think we could move bind-keys to lisp/emacs-lisp, if everybody agrees.

> Also I suspect you need to add "doc/misc/use-package.texi" to `:core` in
> order for the `:doc` to find the file.  Have you tried the above recipe?

You're right, it did not work without that addition.  I've changed that
in the attached, now fully tested patch.

>> + ("use-package-ensure-system-package"
>> +  :core ("lisp/use-package/use-package-ensure-system-package.el"))
>
> Why do we need this as a separate package?

Because it was like that on MELPA.  I think we might as well not do
that.

The only nice thing I see is that it would stop `use-package' from
depending on `system-packages'.  But I don't think that's a big issue,
and on the contrary doing that will make things simpler.

>     This will expect a global binary package to exist called @code{foo}.
>
> Should we use another name than "binary package"?  In my part of the
> world these things are usually called "executables" or "programs",
> occasionally they're called "binaries" but I'd never heard them called
> "binary packages".

I hope I managed to improve that with commit a9037aa8e8, thanks.