|
From: | Jim Porter |
Subject: | bug#65027: 30.0.50; [PATCH] Document .elpaignore behavior in the Emacs Lisp manual |
Date: | Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:11:30 -0700 |
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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |