GNU bug report logs - #22054
Potential errors in package--builtins

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 22054 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 22054 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Potential errors in package--builtins
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 20:24:44 +0100

* `ielm' is missing from the list.  I suspect it is not detected as a
  package because the first line does not contain the summary.  Also,
  shouldn't the "interaction mode for Emacs Lisp" be located inside
  lisp/emacs-lisp/?

* `cl-preload' is listed as a separate package.  That might be
  intentional but wouldn't it make more sense to make it part of
  the `cl-lib' package?

* `eieio-compat' is listed as a separate package.  But I suspect that
  is intentional.  Not sure though.

* `sasl-scram-rfc' is listed as a separate package, but all the other
  `sasl-*' libraries are part of the `sasl' package.

This is for the `emacs-25' branch.

Message #8 received at 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com>
To: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
Cc: 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22054: Potential errors in package--builtins
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:24:03 +0000

2015-11-29 19:24 GMT+00:00 Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>:
> * `ielm' is missing from the list.  I suspect it is not detected as a
>   package because the first line does not contain the summary.

No. It needs a version number to be considered a package. But then,
why should it be on the list? Is it also provided in one of the
archives?

> Also, shouldn't the "interaction mode for Emacs Lisp" be located inside
>   lisp/emacs-lisp/?

Last I was told, lisp/emacs-lisp is for libraries to be used by other
elisp code. But then, not all files in there perfectly fit that
description either.
So I'll let someone who cares about that continue this line of thought. =P

> * `cl-preload' is listed as a separate package.
>
> * `eieio-compat' is listed as a separate package.  But I suspect that
>   is intentional.  Not sure though.
>
> * `sasl-scram-rfc' is listed as a separate package, but all the other
>   `sasl-*' libraries are part of the `sasl' package.

Assuming you mean cl-preloadED.el... Maybe someone just fixed it but
none of these are listed as built-ins for me.

Message #11 received at 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
To: bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com
Cc: 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22054: Potential errors in package--builtins
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 15:46:54 +0100

Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 2015-11-29 19:24 GMT+00:00 Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>:
>> * `ielm' is missing from the list.  I suspect it is not detected as a
>>   package because the first line does not contain the summary.
>
> No. It needs a version number to be considered a package. But then,
> why should it be on the list? Is it also provided in one of the
> archives?

Why not?  It is a self-contained package, just like many other
self-contained packages, which are listed as individual packages.  I
cannot see a reason why these other packages should be treated as such,
but not this one.

There are other libraries which one might argue should, or should not,
be considered to be individual packages, but in this case it seems
pretty clear to me that it should be a package, because many other
libraries "just like it" are.

>> * `cl-preload' is listed as a separate package.
>>
>> * `eieio-compat' is listed as a separate package.  But I suspect that
>>   is intentional.  Not sure though.
>>
>> * `sasl-scram-rfc' is listed as a separate package, but all the other
>>   `sasl-*' libraries are part of the `sasl' package.
>
> Assuming you mean cl-preloadED.el...

Yes.

> Maybe someone just fixed it but none of these are listed as built-ins
> for me.

On the `emacs-25' branch, they all have an individual entry in
`package--builtins'.

Message #14 received at 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com>
To: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
Cc: 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22054: Potential errors in package--builtins
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:18:30 +0000

2015-12-03 14:46 GMT+00:00 Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>:
> On the `emacs-25' branch, they all have an individual entry in
> `package--builtins'.

I see we're talking about different things then. I was looking at the
list of built-in packages in the package menu.
Indeed, the variable you're referring to lists even files without
version-numbers, so ielm should be in that list. And your initial
assessment looks correct, so I'll fix it.

Since nobody said anything about the other entries you mentioned being
intentional, I'll fix them too and we'll see if anyone yells. :)

Message #19 received at 22054-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 22054-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22054: Potential errors in package--builtins
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 15:37:08 +0000

> Since nobody said anything about the other entries you mentioned being
> intentional, I'll fix them too and we'll see if anyone yells. :)

Fixed in emacs-25

Message #22 received at 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
To: bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com
Cc: 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22054: Potential errors in package--builtins
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 20:43:47 +0100

Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 2015-12-03 14:46 GMT+00:00 Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>:
>> On the `emacs-25' branch, they all have an individual entry in
>> `package--builtins'.
>
> I see we're talking about different things then. I was looking at the
> list of built-in packages in the package menu.
> Indeed, the variable you're referring to lists even files without
> version-numbers, so ielm should be in that list. And your initial
> assessment looks correct, so I'll fix it.
>
> Since nobody said anything about the other entries you mentioned being
> intentional, I'll fix them too and we'll see if anyone yells. :)

Thanks.

(Do you intend to do that soon?)

Message #25 received at 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com>
To: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
Cc: 22054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22054: Potential errors in package--builtins
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 20:34:08 +0000

It's done already on the emacs-25 branch. It'll get merged to master
when someone merges the branch to master (which is taking unusually
long due to some technicalities on this release).

2015-12-12 19:43 GMT+00:00 Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>:
>
> Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 2015-12-03 14:46 GMT+00:00 Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>:
>>> On the `emacs-25' branch, they all have an individual entry in
>>> `package--builtins'.
>>
>> I see we're talking about different things then. I was looking at the
>> list of built-in packages in the package menu.
>> Indeed, the variable you're referring to lists even files without
>> version-numbers, so ielm should be in that list. And your initial
>> assessment looks correct, so I'll fix it.
>>
>> Since nobody said anything about the other entries you mentioned being
>> intentional, I'll fix them too and we'll see if anyone yells. :)
>
> Thanks.
>
> (Do you intend to do that soon?)

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.