Federico Beffa (2015-07-09 23:41 +0300) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Alex Kost wrote: >> Federico Beffa (2015-07-08 23:22 +0300) wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Alex Kost wrote: >>>> A side note: I think generally it would be preferable to use an upstream >>>> release in the package recipe rather than to use a melpa(-stable) URL, >>>> i.e.: >>>> >>>> http://foo-upstream.org/foo-0.1.tar.gz instead of >>>> http://stable.melpa.org/packages/foo-0.1.tar >>> >>> I believe that such information is not available from ELPA archives. >>> Therefore the ELPA importer has no way to do this. But, obviously, >>> manual modification is possible. (By the way, the tar files are >>> similar but not identical.) >> >> Surely, I didn't mean that it's a task for the elpa importer. I'm >> totally for the manual modification to use an upstream release, not the >> melpa(-stable) one. >> >> By "the tar files are similar" do you mean that MELPA usually leaves >> only elisp files in the tarballs? I think since it's a common practice >> to put elisp files in the root directory of the repo, we should add a >> phase to the emacs build system to remove non-elisp files (like >> .gitignore or README) from the final >> /gnu/store/…-foo-0.1/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/foo-0.1/ directory. > > One difference that I noticed in the tar files is that tar coming from > elpa archives always include the .info file, while the upstream ones > do not always do so. I've not investigated further differences. I think that the upstream never include (at least they shouldn't) ".info" files. So perhaps it would be good to add a phase for building info manual if there are ".texi" files and no ".info". > While often the READMEs are not very usefull, sometimes they are. But do people look at ~/.guix-profile/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d/foo directory to find README and other useful non-elisp files? > Therefore I do not like the idea of removing them, nor anything else > provided by the package. It's upstream who should decide what's > relevant. With the use of 'guix.d' there will be no name clashes. Did > you happen to see the following thread? > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-06/msg00392.html Yes, I read it, but when you say «provided by the package» and «It's upstream who should decide», you are talking about the packages imported from (m)elpa, not the upstream itself. Since melpa is unusable (due to a hash problem), we'll have to use the direct upstream releases, which are not stripped from ".gitignore" and other unrelated files. So all these files will move into "…/.guix.d/package" dir. As an example, try the following variant of "emacs-mmm-mode" package: