Subject: bug#26802: Single source file emacs packages get a ".el.el" extension

From: Alex Kost <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 12:03:02 +0300

Arun Isaac (2017-05-17 22:34 +0530) wrote:

[...]
> Patches 3 and 4 are two different ways to solve the double extension
> ".el.el" problem, only one of which we should push.

Actually, I am for both (but for a modified version of the patch 3) :-)

> Patch 3 makes the linter check for the existence of the version number
> somewhere in the source file name. Therefore, if there is no version in
> the file name, the packager will put in a file-name field, thus avoiding
> the double extension problem. However, modifying the linter like this
> will have far-reaching consequences possibly affecting other packages
> which build fine without lint warnings.

Lint warnings are just warnings after all.  Having more warnings will
not be a big problem I think.

> I am currently NOT IN FAVOR of this approach.

And I like this approach :-)

As I've just written in another message, I'd like to have a linter that
will check for "name" and "version" to make the store file names
unambiguous.  But this is a more general discussion for another topic.

> Patch 4 fixes the problem by just making the emacs-build-system (in
> particular, the `store-file->elisp-source-file' function) more robust,
> and capable of handling file names without a version number. This, I
> think, is the better solution. I am currently IN FAVOR of this approach.

Right, I agree: it's a good fix for the problem, thanks!

> Hopefully, this settles the confusion and ambiguity. :-) WDYT -- Patch
> 3 or 4?

I think patch 4 can be committed now, and patch 3 is for another
discussion.

-- 
Alex