[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Wishlist bug for repackaging of dash-el ? (Was Re: Cask & dependencies)


On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:19:09AM +0100, Rémi Vanicat wrote:
> I was wondering if it would not be the moment to ask the dash-el debian
> package maintainer to switch to an elpa style package. We will have more
> and more package depending on dash-el, and the sooner dash-el integrate
> into the elpa infrastructure, the easier it will be for us to add new
> package. 

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 08:40:00AM -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> 1) Perhaps we should start by documenting (on the wiki?) what the concrete
> benefits of switching existing packages to dh-elpa.  Is this mainly
> easier calculation of dependencies, less changes to upstream test
> suites, or ?

Here's something: any package which depends on dash will have
"Package-Requires: (dash (0.foo))" in its header, and this must be
commented out with a quilt patch or Emacs will complain that it can't
find dash.  Since dash is depended on by so many packages, switching it
to a dh_elpa package would save a lot of patching.

> 2) Is dh-elpa feature complete?  One thing we discussed in Heidelberg
> that isn't implimented yet is calculating dependencies from elpa
> metadata and putting them in a substvar. I think this is not so hard,
> I'm curious whether people think we should try to have it in place
> before pushing for wider adoption of dh-elpa. Or are there are other
> important missing features?

I'm planning to give this a shot.  In my own view it does not block
pushing for wider adoption of dh_elpa, though, because it's very easy to
look up the dependencies by hand (e.g. by looking at the package's page
on MELPA and then confirming by checking the main .el file).

> 3) Are we willing to offer to adopt packages? My experience from the
> perl team suggests this is the surest way to get things done. OTOH, you
> need to be prepared to deal with a large number of packages. So far the
> team is pretty loosely knit; I've just begun to sponsor packages for
> team members without uploading privileges; I'm not sure if other people
> are willing/interested in doing that. Sean's activities are probably a
> good test for that.

Perhaps we could at least offer to adopt core dependencies.  There's not
much point in adopting Org-mode: since an old version is part of Emacs
core, I don't think any ELPA packages depend on it.  On the other hand
MELPA reports that 15 packages depend on magit.

> 4) Another thing that has been suggested at some point is
> auto-rebuilding team packages on a new dh-elpa upload. Because of the
> generated maintainer scripts, this rebuilding is likely to continue to
> be required, and it's not very nice for uploaders.

Could you explain why this is needed, or point me somewhere to read
about why?  I thought that since all Emacs Lisp packages are
architecture-independent there was never any rebuilding needed.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: