Hello,
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:08:08PM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > > > 3. Any particular reason you are using gz and not xz compression in
> > > > gbp.conf? Also, it might be a good idea to check the tarball into
> > > > git with pristine-tar so that a sponsor has exactly the same one (I
> > > > generated my own for testing).
> > >=20
> > > None. Just cut-and-yank from paredit package.
> > Okay. I'd be grateful if you could use dh-make-elpa and report bugs,
> > although it's having trouble with gbp.conf right now I think.
>
> No idea why, but dh-make-elpa (seems to violate debhelper naming
> convention)
It does?
> works when invoken from /bin/bash, but complains about package
> versions, when invoked from my shell of choice, rc.
>
> Just wild suggestion, seems it assumes, that `getenv("PWD") == getcwd()'.
> It is not.
Thanks for the hint. Added to my TODO list for dh-make-elpa.
> Adding note about xz is on my todo list.
>
> Also, about source package naming. What about emacs-foo? elpa-foo
> reveals implementation detail, and just foo introduce
> inconsistences/collisions. Let's settle this before upload.
Our current convention is to use the upstream package name for the
source package name, unless the word is very common and the Emacs
package is very minor, in which case we use the emacs- prefix.
Are you suggesting we always use the emacs- prefix? I don't see why we
would need to do that. goto-chg is fine in this case. Though you could
bring it up on debian-emacsen@l.d.o.
--
Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature