Re: RFC: relaxation of debian-emacs-policy dependency requirements
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Rob Browning writes ("Re: RFC: relaxation of debian-emacs-policy dependency requirements"):
> > If the package doesn't need to use any of the emacsen-common build
> > infrastructure (doesn't need to byte-compile for each flavor, etc.),
> > then it doesn't need to have any emacsen-related dependencies -- that's
> > already in policy.
> Ah, yes, (5) of the Emacs policy. Perhaps the wossname-el packages
> are being invented by maintainers who haven't read that part ?
> Packages which seem to be affected include
> uim-el (which also seems to be mistakenly "Architecture: any")
>  I searched lenny for binary packages whose names ended in .el,
> which seemed to come from a non-emacs-related source package. This is
> a surprisingly short list. There were 48 binary packages ending in
> -el but mostly they seem to come from dedicated source packages.
> Perhaps it would be sensible to give some quantitative guidance in the
> Emacs policy and/or just file bugs on those packages ?
I maintain gri-el and it gets byte-compiled. I suppose it would run
well enough without byte-compilation but I recall feeling encouraged to
package it thoroughly with byte-compilation at the time.
I presume the others you have found also byte-compile files and no bug
reports are needed. [...] Just installed all of them, and yes, they all