Re: shipping elisp for notmuch in elpa-notmuch debian package

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2189 bytes --]

On Wed 2019-12-04 08:53:14 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> writes:
>>     rstdoc.el
>>     make-deps.el
>>     dir
>
> the first two are build tools. 

if they're build tools then we don't need to ship them with
elpa-notmuch, right?

> The latter is needed by the info files.

needed how?  what functionality is missing?  with the current
elpa-notmuch installed, if i do "M-x info" i see a bunch of notmuch
entries that show up under a big "Miscellaneous" heading, which appears
to be the contents of this /dir file.  If the purpose of it is just
filing it under "Miscellaneous" that doesn't seem like much of a filing
operation :P

>> The package also ships a bunch of *.info files in that elpa
>> module-specific directory, rather than shipping them in the typical
>> /usr/share/info/ location.  These info files appear to be translations
>> of the manpages or other basic notmuch documentation.  Is there a reason
>> to ship them in the elpa-specific directory?
>
> It makes the elpa (make elpa) package self contained (with docs).
> package.el knows how to install info files, so the debian-specific
> tooling is not needed.

sure, but if i "info notmuch" right now in debian, even with
elpa-notmuch installed, i just get info redisplaying the notmuch(1)
manpage, rather than rendering the info file which exists.  Is that the
goal?

>> I note that notmuch-pkg.el is installed in elpa-notmuch, but it is *not*
>> in /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp when installed via the standard "make
>> install".  i don't know enough about how that installation is supposed
>> to work, but if it's supposed to drop in a notmuch-pkg.el, then
>> something needs fixing in the baseline "make install".
>
> It's metadata for the elpa (package.el) package. Not sure it is helpful
> in the standard install, but I don't really use the standard install, so
> I'm open to ideas

OK, i'm obviously used to using the elpa package too, so i don't know
how this would affect the "standard install", so i'm happy to drop this
point of my questioning unless someone who uses the standard install
wants to speak up.

   --dkg

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]