Subject: bug#62751: closed (Re: bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2023 23:50:02 +0000

Your bug report

#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages

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].

-- 
62751: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62751
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages
From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
To: Jonas Bernoulli <[email-masked]>
Cc: Michael Albinus <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 16:49:08 -0700
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Jonas Bernoulli <[email-masked]> writes:

> Michael Albinus <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>>>                                    part of?:
>>> 8. lisp/net/tramp-container.el     tramp
>>
>> I cannot reproduce it. Tested with a fresh checkout of the emacs-29
>> branch:
>
> You are right.  Don't know what happened, maybe my finder-inf.el was
> outdated.
>
>      Sorry for the noise,
>      Jonas

I'm therefore closing this bug report.

Subject: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages
From: Jonas Bernoulli <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 15:04:53 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hello,

Some new libraries still need to be assigned to a package in
`package--builtins'.

In some cases it seems clear to me, or at least likely, that we forgot
to declare the package when adding the new library.  I.e., that treating
them as packages in their own right, was not intentional, but the result
of that being the fallback behavior when no package is explicitly
specified.

1. ietf-drums-date.el (summary: "parse time/date for ietf-drums.el"),
   should be part of ietf-drums.

3. package-vc.el should probably be treated as a package separate
   from Package, to make it easier to distribute Package on GNU ELPA.

4. All, or most, of the *-ts-mode.el probably should be treated as
   separate packages.

5. c-ts-common.el should probably not be a separate package.  Maybe it
   should be part of c-ts-mode, or maybe even all the *-ts-mode.el, that
   depend on this library, should be part of a single c-ts-mode?

The following packages are also listed separately in package--builtins,
but I tend to think that is not intentional.

                                   part of?:
6. lisp/keymap.el                  emacs
7. lisp/emacs-lisp/oclosure.el     emacs
8. lisp/net/tramp-container.el     tramp

9. It seems a bit excessive to consider each use-package*.el a separate
   package.  Maybe they should all be part of a single use-package
   package.  An entry in finder--builtins-alist should be used to
   accomplish that.

10. All the lisp/net/eudc*.el should probably be part of a single eudc
    package.

11. All the lisp/image/image-dired*.el should probably be part of a
    single image-dired package.

Maybe we should stop falling though to assign a new library to its own
separate package, if nothing else is specified explicitly?  It is of
course nice not having to either add a "Package" library header or a
finder--builtins-alist entry, but it also makes it easy to forget to
explicitly specify the package when doing that would be necessary.

Speaking of finder--builtins-alist, what about adding these entries?:
  ("leim" . emacs)
  ("obsolete" . emacs)

     Cheers,
     Jonas