GNU bug report logs - #53805
27.2; NonGNU ELPA: helm does not install dependencies

Previous Next

Full log

Message #38 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thierry Volpiatto <thievol <at> posteo.net>
To: Thierry Volpiatto <thievol <at> posteo.net>, "Stefan Monnier via Bug reports
 for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors"
 <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>,
 "Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of
 text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 53805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Xingyu Pu <pu.stshine <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#53805: 27.2; NonGNU ELPA: helm does not install dependencies
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 15:52:13 +0000

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

Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>, Thierry Volpiatto <thievol <at> posteo.net> writes:

> Thierry Volpiatto <thievol <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Stefan Monnier via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of
>> text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>>> It seems to me that the core of the issue is that the ELPA build system
>>>> overrides the existing -pkg.el files, by trying to infer all the package
>>>> metadata from the main files (helm.el, helm-core.el).  If as in the case
>>>> of helm and helm-core these are empty, this leads to unexpected results.
>>>
>>> The best course of action is to fix the upstream.
>>> They simply shouldn't have any `<foo>-pkg.el` file.
>>
>> I disagree, in the simple case of async package this didn't cause problems, but
>> here it does because we have two packages (helm-core+helm) coming from
>> the same git repo.
>
> What is the issue in this case?  The ELPAs already have packages that
> share common upstream repositories.  The main issue here that I see is
> that helm.el and helm-core.el

There is no helm-core.el file.

> don't have Package-Requires headers, which is why the dependency list
> is currently empty.

Since long time I asked to not have such informations fetched from
source files but from pkg.el files, which is cleaner.
 
>>> We will generate the `<foo>-pkg.el` in any case because we include more
>>> information there than what the upstream will have put (e.g. we include
>>> the commit id from which the tarball is built),
>>
>> So what is the problem? Just append the informations fetched from the
>> upstream *pkg.el files to the *pkg.el file you are usually building.
>> I guess it is what Melpa does more or less.
>>
>>> and and modifying files that are under version control tends to lead
>>> to problems.
>>
>> You are anyway creating a new *pkg.el file so why do you want to modify
>> the original *pkg.el files?
>
> This is also what the patch I proposed above would do.  Or rather the
> -pkg file is parsed, and later overwritten.

Looks good.

-- 
Thierry

[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.