Re: [Pkg-emacsen-addons] Bug#911553: RFS: rtags/2.20-1 [ITP]
David Bremner <email@example.com> writes:
> Normally I'm in favour of each upstream elpa package being a debian
> binary package, but I wonder if these needs (initially) to generate so
> many binary packages. elpa-rtags makes sense as a binary package, since
> at least one other package in melpa (malinka) depends on it. The others
> might be groupable into one binary package. I'm not sure if that would
> introduce significate maintenance overhead.
I guess it would require the maintence of a fake rtags-something-pkg.el
file to convince dh_elpa that the various .el's belong together. At the
moment I'm not sure if that's a good tradeoff or not.