GNU bug report logs - #62751
29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

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


Message #130 received at 62751 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
Cc: jonas <at> bernoul.li, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 62751 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned
 to packages
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2023 19:52:03 +0300
> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2023 08:46:46 -0700
> Cc: jonas <at> bernoul.li, 62751 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> +4.  Check that all new Lisp libraries belong to sensible packages.
> >> +    Run "make -C lisp finder-data" and check the diff of the generated
> >> +    file against the previously released Emacs version to see what has
> >> +    changed.
> >> +
> >
> > This could benefit from some criteria for what is and isn't reasonable
> > in these diffs, or what to do with the differences.  Because otherwise
> > "check the diff" doesn't tell how to check it.
> 
> I didn't put anything, because I don't know how to summarize that in a
> few short words.  Ideas for how to do that are welcome.

Well, if you tell it in as many words as you need (or point me to
where it was already described up-thread), I could try suggesting a
concise version.




This bug report was last modified 1 year and 278 days ago.

Previous Next


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