Subject: bug#53004: closed (Re: bug#53004: NonGNU ELPA: paredit only available in -devel archive)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 16:55:03 +0000

Your bug report

#53004: NonGNU ELPA: paredit only available in -devel archive

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
53004: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=53004
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#53004: NonGNU ELPA: paredit only available in -devel archive
From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
To: Sean Whitton <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 08:54:48 -0800
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Sean Whitton <[email-masked]> writes:

> I was in touch with upstream recently about a bug.  I think that 25
> might be forthcoming.  So perhaps wait and see a bit?

I think I've misunderstood the development model. Basically, it is
briefly changed from e.g. version 25-beta to version 25 when it is
released, and then it is changed to 26-beta. So if you're running from
current master, it will always be such a "beta" version.

In this case, we could tag up an old commit and build a package from
that, but I don't think it's worth it. Let's just wait for version 26.

I'm therefore closing this bug report.

Subject: NonGNU ELPA: paredit only available in -devel archive
From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:10:05 -0500
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

In elpa-packages, we have:

    ("paredit"		:url "https://mumble.net/~campbell/git/paredit.git"
     :ignored-files ("check.sh" "genhtml.sh" "test.el"))

But I can't find it on:

    http://elpa.nongnu.org/nongnu/

However, it is available here:

    https://elpa.nongnu.org/nongnu-devel/

I guess this has to do with the version number, which is "25beta".  I'm
not sure why it is a beta, as I've been using it for 10+ years with no
issues whatsoever.

Perhaps we should gently ask the developer to bump it to some non-beta
version number, or alternatively accept that as a full release in this
case?