Not sure how wise it is to package something that acts as a staging ground
for things to be promoted in say subr.el, as a package. This was the
original idea behind subr-x.el - I had suggested some things to be added to
subr.el, but they were deemed somewhat experimental, as some people weren't
convinced of their usefulness. So, provided things get moved from subr-x to
subr, which I hope to see some day, this proposed package will get out of
sync with whatever is in Emacs itself.

On 20 May 2015 at 17:33, Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > If I do that, would it be viable to offer subr-x on GNU Elpa as well?
> >
> > Like we do for seq.el?
>
> Yes, precisely.
>
> > I don't like this duplication very much, but as
> > long as they are 100% identical, I think it's OK.
>
> I'm never a fan of redundancy, but in this case I think it's worth the
> evil.
> But it would certainly be nice to have a way to link the source of an Elpa
> package to its built-in counterpart.
>