Re: [Pkg-emacsen-addons] Bug#911553: RFS: rtags/2.20-1 [ITP]

[David Bremner <david@tethera.net>]

Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> 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.
>
> If we don't use the separate binary packages, ${elpa:Depends} won't work
> properly.  This might create more work for maintainers.
>

Sure. But currently nothing in melpa depends on any of these elpa
packages other than rtags.el; I'm not sure how likely it is that
something will in the future, given the nature of the packages. I could
be wrong about the latter, of course.

d