From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Okamsn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Adding the `prescient` packages to NonGNU ELPA? Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 18:01:18 +0000 Message-ID: References: <16193c73-ab80-04c9-558f-d5e6142f38f3@protonmail.com> <871qpydllo.fsf@posteo.net> <874jutft6g.fsf@gmail.com> <87pmcj2lsg.fsf@posteo.net> <877cyq5qym.fsf@posteo.net> <87pmcivwrq.fsf@posteo.net> <87iliavw08.fsf@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14455"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: North Year , Visuwesh , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Philip Kaludercic , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 17 19:40:09 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1p6c6T-0003Ur-7p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 19:40:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6c5k-0002n4-Gj; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:39:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6bVE-0004o0-UA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:01:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.133]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6bVC-0008AM-M3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:01:40 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1671300090; x=1671559290; bh=adNSQ8KKVTmsVGMigAmUYUbmDCWhncJhOxqPP+yYOcM=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=aJ2ow67HCBL6xTIhPNoQWlG2JgTHrMMq7sppnIiQMoo8nLAeGVm4bKZ/sEBpVFbtl ioRrO1LgwILXYSUtItzwumLUAXI8vmmsThYYkJ9FsQDj8OW5UMpX6T6jCkigrYV2jS K8n6cUNAgTxb+I/7sCuXfhMy9YHf1GLX6OOv5A1I5BI3vRK99bgUZJ9+G62xcZcNab djOIlzuZ78GQ7GQt0qszgR5YXPpUwy+7xWxokuTRnpFiYI4qnVtC/go2uwYnBX+k70 xzMJwCdZvrI2PFnUb7jYRNLHz/uKMxg9Qh+uFpMWRxmKL8Yws2vBbAMZrklMwPiw3g Bdq9/XC6SUEOA== In-Reply-To: <87iliavw08.fsf@posteo.net> Feedback-ID: 25935600:user:proton Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.133; envelope-from=okamsn@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40133.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:39:23 -0500 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:301580 Archived-At: On 2022-12-17 16:24 UTC, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > Philip Kaludercic writes: > >> Stefan Monnier 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 thi= s >>>> 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.