Hello, On Fri 17 Aug 2018 at 01:12AM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > I disagree here, not by numbers, but generally. dh-elpa having > flexibility issues should be a reason to introduce further tiny binary > packages at all. It should be a reason to fix dh-elpa (IMHO). (Hence > my original as well as this bug report.) To be clear, I do not consider this to be a lack of flexibility, but a sensible design choice (this is not to say that your feature request is invalid, only that it is definitely a feature request, not a bug). It is very useful to know that binary packages named elpa-* have a certain structure and contain only Emacs lisp and perhaps some documentation, just as it is useful to know that libghc-foo-dev is a Haskell library, libghc-foo-doc is the Haddock documentation for that library, etc. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature