Re: mh-e for emacs-snapshot and icon images directory
[I should have CC'ed the original message to the MH-E list as well.
I'm doing so now.]
Romain Francoise <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Peter Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
> > MH-E (packaged as mh-e in Debian) has moved it's CVS repository to Emacs
> > itself. Therefore, I should probably skip package setup for the
> > emacs-snapshot flavour. Agreed?
> Yes please. (I'll bounce MH-E bug reports to the list anyway.)
Feel free to reassign MH-E bugs to the mh-e package anyway. I'm also
a member of upstream development for MH-E in any case.
> > Secondly, the icon images have been moved out of the elisp directory in
> > CVS Emacs and into
> > /usr/share/emacs/VERSION/etc/images/
> > For the mh-e package, I have placed them into
> > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/etc/images/mh-e/
> > but I am being lobbied to place them into simply
> > /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/etc/images/
> > for symmetry and for later sharing with other packages. Would people
> > object to me populating a site-lisp directory with so many files
> > directly? I'm on the fence about this. On one side, I like the
> > symmetry with how Emacs bundles them; on the other I don't like the
> > apparent added clutter in the site-lisp directory.
> > Any thoughts?
> In Debian, /usr/share/pixmaps is the correct location for image
> files, so you should put images under /usr/share/pixmaps/mh-e/ and
> populate /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/etc/images/mh-e with symlinks (see
> how gnus does it).
I was wondering why the gnus package did that. I hate symlink farms,
but if that's policy...
> As for 'etc/images' vs 'etc/images/mh-e', I think having the
> subdirectory is cleaner. It avoids theoretical issues with two packages
> providing the same file, etc.
That was my feeling as well (although I didn't express it here).
> : :' : Romain Francoise <email@example.com>
> `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
>  Yes, emacs-snapshot doesn't follow this convention yet, it's on my
> TODO list.