GNU bug report logs - #55388
28.1; New libraries that neither belong to a package nor provide a feature

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>

Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 18:36:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Found in version 28.1

Fixed in version 29.2

Done: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log

Message #11 received at 55388 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 55388 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
Subject: Re: bug#55388: 28.1; New libraries that neither belong to a package
 nor provide a feature
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 14:37:41 -0700

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li> writes:
>
>> "lisp/emacs-lisp/shorthands.el" doesn't provide a feature and lacks
>> a "Package" library header.  I think "Package: emacs" should be added.

The same is true for smie.el, syntax.el, tabulated-list.el, testcover.el
and possibly others.  Should they have such a header as well?

>> Like other files in that directory "lisp/leim/quail/cham.el" neither
>> provides a feature nor is it explicitly made part of a package.  Would
>> it make sense to add ("leim" . emacs) to `finder--builtins-alist'?
>
> Are all .el files supposed to have either a Package: header or a
> `provides' these days?  I wasn't aware of that...
>
> Hm...  I see that Chong did something like that with all the preloaded
> .el files in bd78fa1d544, so I guess that's true?

It seems like it's not consistent.  What do we use such a header for?
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 250 days ago.

Previous Next

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