Subject: [bug#50077] Separate ‘emacs’ output vs separate ‘emacs-’ package (was Re: [bug#50077] [PATCH 1/3] gnu: notmuch: Add separate 'emacs' output.)

From: Xinglu Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 14:05:40 +0200

On Wed, Sep 01 2021, Andrew Tropin wrote:

> On 2021-08-30 15:33, Xinglu Chen wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 30 2021, Andrew Tropin wrote:
>>
>>>> Why would it be more consistent to make a separate package?  Making a
>>>> separate package is usually used for packaging a slightly different
>>>> version of the “regular” package, e.g., ‘emacs-next-pgtk’ adds native
>>>> compilation and pure GTK support for Emacs., ‘emacs-no-x’ removes X
>>>> suport for ‘emacs’.  ‘emacs-notmuch’ isn’t really a different version of
>>>> ‘notmuch’, it’s just ‘notmuch’ but with all the non-Elisp stuff
>>>> removed.  This is usually what using different outputs tries to achieve,
>>>> e.g., separate documentation from the main package, or in this case,
>>>> separate Elisp stuff from the main package.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Almost all elisp packages in Guix have a emacs- prefix, so as a user I
>>> expect to find notmuch*.el in emacs-notmuch package and notmuch binary
>>> in notmuch package, despite the fact that upstream distributes the
>>> source code for both of them in one tarball.
>>
>> Good point, however, If we were to have separate ‘emacs-’ packages for
>> the packages that also contain Elisp stuff, should those packages still
>> include the Emacs package in their output, i.e., should the ‘notmuch’
>> package still include notmuch.el, or should the Elisp stuff only be in
>> ‘emacs-notmuch’?
>>
>
> IMO, notmuch package should not include Elisp stuff, at least I don't
> see use cases, where it can be useful, but see where it can be
> harmful.

Should this apply to other packages that contains Elisp stuff too, or is
it specific to ‘notmuch’?

Cc’ing guix-devel to see what other people think before we start
breaking people’s setups.  :-)