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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #29 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 20:11:30 -0700

On 8/3/2023 3:41 PM, Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the 
Swiss army knife of text editors wrote:
> Historically, the difference was between the format of the repository
> (which only affected things like Melpa and (Non)GNU ELPA) and the format
> of ELPA tarballs (which is what `package.el` dealt with).
> 
> `package-vc` makes the repository format relevant to `package.el`.
> But there might still be differences between what `package-vc` requires
> and what (Non)GNU ELPA requires, beside the data actually maintained in
> the (Non)GNU ELPA `elpa-packages`.

Yeah. I do think as a package author who once wasn't sure about exactly 
what I should do to make my Emacs package follow best-practices, the 
first place I'd look is in the Package section of the Emacs Lisp manual 
(regardless of where the implementations for package management live). 
But, like you say, now that 'package-vc' exists, Emacs itself now knows 
(some) about the repo format, too.

In any case, if there are no objections in the next day or two, I'll 
merge my patch, and then look into whether there are any other things 
worth documenting. (For example, I'll try to turn my suggested 
documentation on package naming[1] into a patch.)

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2023-05/msg00452.html

Previous Next

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