On 27/05/07, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> wrote:
Regarding the current Emacsen add-on draft, * Added some more info about requiring a version of (X)Emacs newer than or equal to the one used to compile the *.elcs, and how to find that version out dynamically during package build.
Thanks very much, Ville.
* I'd like to see something mentioned about packaging *.el snippets that aren't full blown packages of their own, see for example rpmdevtools.
Yes, actually Tom Tromey had also mentioned this to me privately, and you're both right - we do need to mention this. There are actually a lot of cases where a piece of software has a mode for eg. editing input files for that software. Another example that springs to mind is gnuplot, which has a subpackage called gnuplot-emacs which installs gnuplot.el gnuplot.elc gnuplot-gui.el gnuplot-gui.elc info-look.20.2.el info-look.20.3.el for GNU Emacs in /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp. There are a couple of things with this which I suppose are inconsistent with the guidelines for full blown emacs add-on packages: 1) The source .el files aren't in a separate sub-package called gnuplot-emacs-el 2) The files aren't installed in their own sub-directory /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/gnuplot 3) The info-look.20.[2,3].el files aren't byte compiled (there may be good reasons for this. Similarly on my system currently I see the same issues for: 1) rpmdevtools (rpm-spec-mode.el[c], 2) desktop-file-utils (desktop-entry-mode.el[c]) 3) libidn (idna.el and no idna.elc) 4) emacs-common (has extra files like php-mode.el, po-mode.el, python-mode.el, ssl.el not in emacs-common-el and also not in their own directories) I would propose guidelines such as these: 1) Packages which include add on modes for (X)Emacs should package the byte compiled lisp files for these modes in a sub-package named foo-emacs and/or foo-xemacs. 2) Packages which include add on modes for (X)Emacs should package the source elisp files in separate subpackges called foo-emacs-el and foo-xemacs-el. 3) Elisp add on subpackages should install their files in an appropriately named subdirectory of /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp and /usr/share/xemacs/site-packages/lisp. These directories should be owned by the foo-emacs and foo-xemacs packages respectively. 4) foo-emacs-el should have Requires: foo-emacs and foo-xemacs-el should have Requires: foo-xemacs. These seem logically consistent with the guidelines formain (X)Emacs add-on packages, but don't fit with current packaging of some packages. The current situation is rather inconsistent. I agree with Ville, I think it's important that the draft include something on this matter. Best wishes, Jonathan. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
