[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to pack
From: |
Stefan Kangas |
Subject: |
bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Sep 2023 07:23:23 -0700 |
fixed 62751 30.1
thanks
Jonas Bernoulli <jonas@bernoul.li> writes:
> 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.
Thanks, I've fixed most of these items now. Note that you need to
make bootstrap before it will take effect.
> 1. ietf-drums-date.el (summary: "parse time/date for ietf-drums.el"),
> should be part of ietf-drums.
Done.
> 3. package-vc.el should probably be treated as a package separate
> from Package, to make it easier to distribute Package on GNU ELPA.
I think this is already the case, but I copied in Philip in case he has
any comments.
> 4. All, or most, of the *-ts-mode.el probably should be treated as
> separate packages.
I might be missing something, but isn't this already the case?
> 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?
It seems to me an implementation detail of these packages:
./progmodes/js.el:57:(require 'c-ts-common) ; For comment indent and filling.
./progmodes/java-ts-mode.el:32:(require 'c-ts-common) ; For comment
indent and filling.
./progmodes/csharp-mode.el:37:(require 'c-ts-common) ; For comment
indenting and filling.
./progmodes/c-ts-mode.el:70:(require 'c-ts-common)
./progmodes/typescript-ts-mode.el:33:(require 'c-ts-common) ; For
comment indent and filling.
./progmodes/rust-ts-mode.el:32:(require 'c-ts-common) ; For comment
indent and filling.
I think it makes the most sense to simply make c-ts-common.el a part of
the emacs package, and let the others remain as first-class citizens in
their own packages. So I made that change.
> 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
Michael already fixed (8), and I've now fixed 6 and 7.
> 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.
Done.
> 10. All the lisp/net/eudc*.el should probably be part of a single eudc
> package.
Done.
> 11. All the lisp/image/image-dired*.el should probably be part of a
> single image-dired package.
Done.
> 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.
Hmm, yes that might make more sense. One would have to add package
statements to a ton of libraries, though. So there'll be a lot of
churn.
Maybe it's worth it in the end, I don't know.
> Speaking of finder--builtins-alist, what about adding these entries?:
> ("leim" . emacs)
> ("obsolete" . emacs)
Done.
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/05
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages,
Stefan Kangas <=
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Jonas Bernoulli, 2023/09/17
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/18
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/18
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/18
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Eli Zaretskii, 2023/09/18
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/20
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Stefan Monnier, 2023/09/20
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/21
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Stefan Monnier, 2023/09/21
- bug#62751: 29.0.90; New libraries that still need to be assigned to packages, Stefan Kangas, 2023/09/22