GNU bug report logs - #50077
[PATCH 0/3] Various improvements to Notmuch

Previous Next

Full log

Message #41 received at 50077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Xinglu Chen <public <at> yoctocell.xyz>
To: Carlo Zancanaro <carlo <at> zancanaro.id.au>, Liliana Marie Prikler
 <leo.prikler <at> student.tugraz.at>
Cc: 50077 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, guix-devel <at> gnu.org, Andrew Tropin <andrew <at> trop.in>
Subject: Re: [bug#50077] Separate ‘emacs’ output vs
 separate ‘emacs-’
 package (was Re: [bug#50077] [PATCH 1/3] gnu: notmuch: Add separate
 'emacs' output.)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 18:14:42 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, Sep 02 2021, Carlo Zancanaro wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 01 2021, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
>> TL;DR: I'm generally in favor of branching emacs support 
>> packages off, even if origins are to be inherited.
>
> This is my preference, and there is precedent for this in Guix 
> already. I know of emacs-protobuf-mode and emacs-erlang which are 
> separate packages, but which reference the source of an existing 
> package (with (package-source protobuf) and (package-source 
> erlang), respectively).
>
> I like how easy it is to discover Emacs packages by looking for 
> the emacs- prefix. Mu and notmuch already violate that prefix 
> expectation, moving their elisp into a separate output would be 
> further hiding the Emacs modes.
>
> Carlo

Looks like there is consensus on the matter, unless someone objects, I
will send an updated series that adds ‘emacs-notmuch’ instead of adding
an extra output to ‘notmuch’.  :-)

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

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