bug#48331: Emacs' describe-package doesn't work for packages managed by guix

[Leo Prikler]

Am Mittwoch, den 19.05.2021, 17:32 +0300 schrieb Andrew Tropin:
> > > Most other package managers seem to respect "infrastructure"
> > > provided by package.el.
> > I don't think that statement is well-supported by the data we have.
> 
> Agree, that was an incorrect statement. I should have said something
> like: there are some popular tools like use-package configuration
> helper, Nix package manager, Spacemacs configuration framework, some
> elisp archives and probably something else, which utilize and follow
> package.el.  Not all of them use package.el itself, but they follow
> conventions and describe-package help command and some other work
> correctly.
Is package.el really so well supported by all these tools?  I might
concede, that some of them don't throw away the package.el blurb like
guix does, but other than that, I think you'd have a hard time stuffing
a random git repo from use-package into package.el.  Am I missing
something?

> > Why should we let ELPA dictate our layout?  I have not even once
> > tried customizing package.el for actual use since I got Guix,
> > because the elpa importer is trivial.
> 
> We don't have to.  Actually, I'm very happy with the new (current)
> layout we have right now.
That's good :)

> I would say I find the following use case very confusing for
> newcomers:
> - Install emacs package via Guix.
> - Use built-in help C-h C-h, find C-h P.
> - Get it to work for built-in packages, but not for packages
> installed by Guix.
> - Get frustrated.
You mean Emacs newcomers?  Tell me something new about the first-time
Emacs experience :P

> I think we could avoid this at least in two ways:
> 1. Use elpa/ subdirectory.
> 2. Keep current structure, set package-directory-list to .../site-
> lisp instead of .../site-lisp/elpa by default.
Neither sounds very pleasant, but does (2) even work?

> > Thus we're not trying to keep in line with any specific package
> > manager, we just need to make things work "with Emacs" in the sense
> > that packages installed via Guix should have working autoloads and
> > one should be able to (require ...) them.
> 
> Yes, but at the same time I don't see reasons why not to implement
> one of two options above.  We can get both: working autoloads and
> working built-in help function (+newcommers won't be so frustrated).
Of course.  The glue code for that would go into guix-emacs.el, just
like our autoload glue.

> Personally, I'm quite happy that packages got their own
> subdirectories and I'm fully satisfied with current state of it, but
> it would be cool if inexperienced users will be able to use at least
> built-in help commands for packages out of the box without additional
> configuration.
> 
> Hope my original point is a little better worded now.
Doing something in Emacs without configuration sounds like an oxymoron,
but I get your point.  At the same time, I think that this kind of
change is a pretty large request (DPD has more than 100 lines not
counting dependencies, it's not small and neat like guix-emacs.el).

If you find a clever trick to make your troubles go away, do submit a
patch, but don't let it rely on user setup (in particular, don't rely
on "haha, the user always carries about the elpa subdirectory").

Regards,
Leo