Hello,
On Fri 26 Oct 2018 at 11:08PM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
>> It builds those binary packages:
>>
>> elpa-ac-rtags - auto-complete back-end for RTags
>> elpa-company-rtags - company back-end for RTags
>> elpa-flycheck-rtags - flycheck integration for RTags
>> elpa-helm-rtags - helm interface for RTags
>> elpa-ivy-rtags - ivy back-end for RTags
>> elpa-rtags - emacs front-end for RTags
>> rtags - C/C++ client/server indexer with integration for Emacs
>>
>
> 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.
If we don't use the separate binary packages, ${elpa:Depends} won't work
properly. This might create more work for maintainers.
--
Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature