From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37383) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dB2Nm-0005B8-HN for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 13:05:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dB2Ni-0003PF-Pd for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 13:05:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48448) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dB2Ni-0003P2-GE for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 13:05:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dB2Ni-0001zw-5T for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 13:05:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26802: Single source file emacs packages get a ".el.el" extension Resent-Message-ID: Message-Id: <0fe6a049.AEUAKMM_QnUAAAAAAAAAAAO9aM4AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZHIK3@mailjet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Arun Isaac Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 22:34:19 +0530 In-reply-to: <87a86czp5e.fsf@gmail.com> 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> <87a86czp5e.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Alex Kost Cc: 26802@debbugs.gnu.org > 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! :-) Well, I'm totally confused now! :-P I don't know which proposal each of us is for/against. So, to make things clearer, I have sent a few patches implementing the various proposals. Patches 1 and 2 are pretty uncontroversial and have little to do with the double extension bug. These patches fix the typo in the docstring, and simplify `check-source-file-name' using a regexp, as discussed earlier. Patches 3 and 4 are two different ways to solve the double extension ".el.el" problem, only one of which we should push. Patch 3 makes the linter check for the existence of the version number somewhere in the source file name. Therefore, if there is no version in the file name, the packager will put in a file-name field, thus avoiding the double extension problem. However, modifying the linter like this will have far-reaching consequences possibly affecting other packages which build fine without lint warnings. I am currently NOT IN FAVOR of this approach. Patch 4 fixes the problem by just making the emacs-build-system (in particular, the `store-file->elisp-source-file' function) more robust, and capable of handling file names without a version number. This, I think, is the better solution. I am currently IN FAVOR of this approach. Hopefully, this settles the confusion and ambiguity. :-) WDYT -- Patch 3 or 4? =