Hello Nicholas, On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 09:22:23PM -0400, Nicholas Steeves wrote: > The questions we need help with are at 2. and especially 4. Okay -- I'll answer those. > > 2. that version patch - really necessary? if upstream screwed up their > > versioning, it's kind of their problem no? since it's just a > > cosmetic change, I would avoid it, personnally. > > Is it just a cosmetic change? Nicholas is right. It's not just a cosmetic change. It's important that ELPA package versions match Debian package versions. In addition to enabling users to mix package.el packages and Debian elpa-* packages, it ensures that Emacs has the right information to tell whether versioned ELPA dependencies are satisfied. Otherwise it can refuse to load packages/try to download new versions from MELPA. > > 4. picking a random elpa package (elpa-helm), i notice it depends on > > "emacs" while yours depend on "emacs-common" - why? and why the > > versioned dependencies? > > > > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-emacsen/pkg/helm.git/tree/debian/control > > My best guess is it's the difference between a package converted to > elpa vs a package created with dh-make-elpa, and I Sean has reasons > for generating versioned dependencies by default. This is actually > one of the reasons I was paranoid about 2. ;-) That's a bug in elpa-helm. It should be emacsen-common. See the Debian Emacs policy. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature