Re: use-package has been merged into emacs-29

[Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> - It appears to be mentioning a few packages that are not available on
>   GNU ELPA or NonGNU ELPA (e.g. git-gutter+, eruby-mode, dash-at-point,
>   ess, color-moccur, moccur-edit, unfill).  Should they be replaced
>   with other packages to make sure the examples are consistently
>   reproducible?

Yup.  All examples like that come from the old README.md.  I got rid of
most of them, but there are several left to fix.

I think we should replace them with either some made up package name
(e.g. "foo" or "some-package") or, in order of preference: built-in, GNU
ELPA, NonGNU ELPA.

IMO, replacing NonGNU ELPA with GNU ELPA packages is usually an
improvement, and so is replacing GNU ELPA packages with built-in ones.

> - MELPA is mention under vindex `use-package-always-pin', is this ok.
>   AFAIR there was some decision to not mention MELPA in the official
>   documentation (currently this also appears to be the only instance).

It's only mentioned to explain how to work around its date-based
versioning scheme (by always installing packages from NonGNU ELPA
instead).  Which I think should be fine.

> - It appears that use-package is sometimes formatted using @code and
>   sometimes not.  I can't make out a consistent rule.

I've tried to follow this:

- Format use-package with no markup when referring to the package.
- Use @code{use-package} when referring to a macro call.

Does that make sense?

> - GNU ELPA is also inconsistently marked up as a single or two separate
>   acronyms.

In one sense, @acronym{GNU ELPA} is better, as that is the full name.
One way of looking at it is that the acronym for "GNU Emacs Lisp Package
Archive" is actually the acronym "GNUELPA", which we just happen to
typeset with a space for increased legibility.

But we also have @acronym{NonGNU ELPA}, and I guess we are now looking
at just a name that is not really an acronym at all?  So perhaps we
should just write out the names GNU ELPA and NonGNU ELPA without any
markup?  Because we also don't want "@acronym{NonGNU} @acronym{ELPA}", I
suppose?