Re: Adding the `prescient` packages to NonGNU ELPA?

[Okamsn <okamsn@protonmail.com>]

On 2022-12-17 16:24 UTC, Philip Kaludercic wrote:
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>
>>>> The only issue I can think about is if later on someone else wants to
>>>> add a package that depends on a specific "sub-package", and they find
>>>> themselves in a conflict specifying their dependency list, in case this
>>>> hypothetical package is to be distributed both via ELPA and MELPA.
>>>
>>> Not our problem?
>>
>> So let it be written, so let it be done.
>>
>> I will prepare the package with everything bundled into a single
>> package, and see if that works out.
>
> As I had suspected, the main issue is that byte-compilation fails:
> ...
> But I guess this can be resolved upstream, if there is an interest.

The extension packages each require the version of the UI that they work
with. I think it is reasonable to do that, and I don't foresee the other
maintainers wanting to change that.

Is there a way to fix this while still declaring the extension packages'
requirements?

> Other than that, the tarball has a lot of administrative files.  I'd
> recommend adding an .elpaignore:
>

That sounds uncontroversial, so I've applied that change. Thank you for
the recommendation.