From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33466) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dCMmV-0004h8-Hg for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 21 May 2017 05:04:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dCMmQ-0003jJ-Ks for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 21 May 2017 05:04:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55034) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dCMmQ-0003jE-HU for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 21 May 2017 05:04:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dCMmQ-0008Iy-A2 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 21 May 2017 05:04:02 -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> <87a86czp5e.fsf@gmail.com> <0fe6a049.AEUAKMM_QnUAAAAAAAAAAAO9aM4AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZHIK3@mailjet.com> Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 12:03:02 +0300 In-Reply-To: <0fe6a049.AEUAKMM_QnUAAAAAAAAAAAO9aM4AAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZHIK3@mailjet.com> (Arun Isaac's message of "Wed, 17 May 2017 22:34:19 +0530") Message-ID: <87r2zih9a1.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 (2017-05-17 22:34 +0530) wrote: [...] > Patches 3 and 4 are two different ways to solve the double extension > ".el.el" problem, only one of which we should push. Actually, I am for both (but for a modified version of the patch 3) :-) > 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. Lint warnings are just warnings after all. Having more warnings will not be a big problem I think. > I am currently NOT IN FAVOR of this approach. And I like this approach :-) As I've just written in another message, I'd like to have a linter that will check for "name" and "version" to make the store file names unambiguous. But this is a more general discussion for another topic. > 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. Right, I agree: it's a good fix for the problem, thanks! > Hopefully, this settles the confusion and ambiguity. :-) WDYT -- Patch > 3 or 4? I think patch 4 can be committed now, and patch 3 is for another discussion. -- Alex