GNU bug report logs - #65027
30.0.50; [PATCH] Document .elpaignore behavior in the Emacs Lisp manual

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 04:57:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: patch

Found in version 30.0.50

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

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #23 received at 65027 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, philipk <at> posteo.net, 65027 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65027: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Document .elpaignore behavior in the
 Emacs Lisp manual
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 15:02:12 -0700
On 8/3/2023 2:21 PM, Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the 
Swiss army knife of text editors wrote:
>> Maybe it would make sense to put all the documentation in the Emacs Lisp
>> manual, and then the GNU ELPA README can be the home for documentation about
>> how to work with the GNU ELPA repository specifically (mainly as an
>> administrator).
> 
> FWIW, that's how it started.  It's just that some of the conventions
> originally used only in (Non)GNU ELPA have now made their way into
> `package.el`.

As a general guideline for documentation, I'm thinking that anything a 
package author puts in their own repository would get documented in the 
Emacs Lisp manual, whereas anything that goes in the (Non)GNU ELPA 
repository (e.g. in the elpa-packages file) goes in the ELPA README. 
That makes intuitive sense to me as a package author at least: then the 
Emacs Lisp manual would have everything I need to *prepare* my package 
for eventual inclusion in ELPA.




This bug report was last modified 151 days ago.

Previous Next


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