Hello Lev, Thank you for working on this. On Wed 05 Dec 2018 at 01:14PM +0500, Lev Lamberov wrote: > Now it became a bit more complicated. So, there's 2.4 release, which > contains the following Emacs Lisp files (declared Version included, no > Package-Version declaration in the original source code): > > bind-chord.el, 0.2 > bind-key.el, 2.4 > use-package-bind-key.el, 1.0 > use-package-chords.el, 0.2 > use-package-core.el, 2.4 > use-package-delight.el, 1.0 > use-package-diminish.el, 1.0 > use-package-ensure-system-package.el, 0.2 > use-package-ensure.el, 1.0 > use-package-jump.el, 1.0 > use-package-lint.el, 1.0 > use-package.el, 2.4 > > Stable MELPA contains the following (declared Version and > Package-Version included): > > bind-chord.el, 0.2, 2.4 > bind-key.el, 2.4, 2.4 > > use-package.tar, 2.4 (no Package-Version declaration): > use-package-bind-key.el, 1.0 > use-package-core.el, 2.4 > use-package-delight.el, 1.0 > use-package-diminish.el, 1.0 > use-package-ensure.el, 1.0 > use-package-jump.el, 1.0 > use-package-lint.el, 1.0 > use-package.el, 2.4 > > use-package-chords.el, 0.2, 2.4 > use-package-ensure-system-package.el, 0.2, 2.4 > > So, sticking to stable MELPA version will not require splitting the > source code into several source packages. Should I patch Version (change > it everywhere to 2.4) or include Package-Version (as it is done in > MELPA)? The main motivation is to choose a plan which will not confuse > users running package-list-packages or some alternative (that is, > use-package and its related packages should not be marked as outdated or > something). To confirm, are you saying that MELPA has added Package-Version headers, overriding the Version: headers from upstream, such that everything in 2.4? What about the libs in your MELPA list that are 1.0? -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature