GNU bug report logs -
#62751
29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages
Previous Next
Reported by: Jonas Bernoulli <jonas <at> bernoul.li>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 13:06:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Found in version 29.0.90
Fixed in version 30.1
Done: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
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 62751 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
--
62751: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=62751
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Version: 30.1
John Wiegley <johnw <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> Should bind-key.el be in lisp/? lisp/emacs-lisp/?
>
> I would put it in lisp/, since it relates to Emacs functionality rather than
> the Emacs Lisp programming language in particular.
Now done on master (commit 947409d408e). I think that's the last of the
outstanding issues in this bug, so I'm closing it with this message.
[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
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
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 279 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.