From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46132) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dAgIQ-0001yS-K1 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2017 13:30:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dAgIN-00034s-G3 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2017 13:30:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:46318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dAgIN-00034H-B0 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2017 13:30:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dAgIM-0005mW-RQ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2017 13:30:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26802: Single source file emacs packages get a ".el.el" extension Resent-Message-ID: From: Alex Kost References: <05a79dd0.AEAAJ6TpV0QAAAAAAAAAAAOtUOAAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZDccC@mailjet.com> <87wp9pbz2b.fsf@gmail.com> <19fd8da9.AEMAKMfGZKsAAAAAAAAAAAO9aM4AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZFLlP@mailjet.com> <87vap5xhks.fsf@gmail.com> <9b375d38.AEAAKIA9bmkAAAAAAAAAAAO9aM4AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZFzYx@mailjet.com> <8737c7fjgn.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 20:29:17 +0300 In-Reply-To: (Arun Isaac's message of "Mon, 15 May 2017 18:58:29 +0530") Message-ID: <87a86czp5e.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Arun Isaac Cc: 26802@debbugs.gnu.org Arun Isaac (2017-05-15 18:58 +0530) wrote: >> I'm not sure, I think: >> >> - it's too much for all the sources, as the upstream source may not >> contain a version in the file name at all. Do we really want to raise a >> warning in this case? > >> - and it's not enough for ".el" sources, I mean "something-version.el" >> is not enough, as the file name must exactly be "name-version.el" (as it >> is with ELPA single-filed sources), so the emacs-build-system will >> output "name.el" file which will correspond to 'name' feature provided >> by this file. > > You have a point, but... > > If all packages cannot be expected to have "name-version", then it is > unreasonable and arbitrary to only expect single source file emacs > packages to have a filename of this format. Instead, the emacs build > system should be made more robust so that it can tolerate a souce file > name like "web-mode.el" and still produce the correct installation path. Yeah, it would definitely be good to make emacs-build-system more robust. After thinking more, I came to the conclusion that expanding the linter to check any source for "name-version" is a good idea (if this is what you suggest, then I agree with you!) So if a source name has some other form, it would be linted, and can be fixed with 'file-name' field. I think such consistency in source file names would be really great. Apparently, this was your original propose (right?), now I support this idea! :-) -- Alex