>>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii writes: EZ> But in any case, having a separate sub-directory for every package, like EZ> what we have on ELPA, makes very little sense for a structure distributed EZ> in a release tarball. You'd have many dozens of subdirectories, each one EZ> with one or a handful of files. +1 It also occurred to me that we don't need a "mapping" file: We can impose the constraint that any ELPA package to be included in the distribution use, within its package, the same directory layout it would like overlaid into the distribution. I don't see why this issue is generating so much discussion. We've decided we're not changing the directory structure for now. Supporting a single layout in the final tarball is not hard. Why the push to cater to package.el? If a user installs Emacs from the tarball, and then wishes to use Org-mode From ELPA rather than the distribution, they'll do what they'd do today: Use M-x package-install to install a newer version of Org-mode in their package directory, shadowing the Org-mode we included in the distribution. As far as I can tell, the only thing we need to support tarball ELPA is file containing a list of packages, and an addition to "make dist" that copies these packages into the distribution directory when building the tarball. Or am I missing something? -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2