Bug#901157: dpkg-dev-el: fails to initialize with unversioned emacs
Package: dpkg-dev-el
Version: 36.4
Severity: important
User: debian-emacsen@lists.debian.org
Usertags: unversioned-emacs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Dear Maintainer/Uploader;
As described in [1], we are currently transitioning to an unversioned
"emacs" package; i.e. the actual useful-to-users package will be
"emacs" instead of "emacs25" or "emacs26".
An unversioned emacs package has been uploaded to
experimental. Unfortunately your package does not byte-compile with
this new emacs. In addition to the obvious performance impact, this
causes your packages to not skip user initialization (since it checks
for byte compiled code)
One option to fix your package is to convert to dh-elpa, and
(optionally) join the debian-emacsen team [1]. Unfortunately dh-elpa
does not support xemacs, so if that's important to you, you'll have to
find some other solution (i.e. update your maintainer/emacsen scripts
by hand).
This bug will become RC when unversioned emacs is uploaded to
unstable. There is no fixed schedule for this, but please try to
address this bug so we can move on to other emacs related maintenance
tasks (e.g. new versions of emacs).
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (900, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 4.16.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_CA:en (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
Versions of packages dpkg-dev-el depends on:
ii debian-el 36.4
ii emacs 1:25.2+1-7
ii emacs-gtk [emacsen] 1:25.2+1-7
ii emacsen-common 3.0.0
Versions of packages dpkg-dev-el recommends:
ii wget 1.19.5-1
Versions of packages dpkg-dev-el suggests:
ii dpkg-dev 1.19.0.5
- -- no debconf information
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQGzBAEBCAAdFiEE3VS2dnyDRXKVCQCp8gKXHaSnniwFAlsb670ACgkQ8gKXHaSn
nizCeAv+KBAgiZaK+frMeQ6bSywAvly3WIpB760odACZV7PdBU4dekpA8M9O6Yvt
XczfZuXFdzZDKjsEM4G4QZQDdYWnWHBQpDv8qo+D0kWWizbD6Z9H1Cx0t+WRJ87C
RbcHWhzne/j3/7LWNKebJngLctuhF5iUkVhKsKBw1HUF6xVm00snG5PlfCef8t3B
TYb0afqwWCXmW+nr64UpB3ihlPBBEnKF6Tg/mqy0sUOHPnLme/C+BEGO2uzXOLJS
Fls5Y3z3grp8wxIpASt6gzpwfC70Z3gcX5GvbTHA9EnyhPYOUWyZvWdCI//ciWF7
b+g/Ufu5jNc1VE9b96Pmake2XKey4epR/KTIuLh8oIvLbu2rfGPqCAMIKFSBK1kc
j8v6UI3uHG0B9IYG0pNhXm+HGCAGOz0mpOPlSfPdDq1C7WsgGL0Jr6xaDk4Mg4aC
TvtjDfdr3fLM7rFKzF8nA76LEgHgNrMi61KvNHsfYPtI+ewX8Fm+4D5HAI1lVVDV
k+mu+qMK
=cNt9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: