Re: Why 'define-package' marked obsolete?

[dalanicolai]

I have now looked at that manual, but I am not sure if I fully understand it.

But I will find out when trying again to create the multi-file package soon.

Thanks again for now!

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 18:15, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:

dalanicolai <dalanicolai@gmail.com> writes:

> Thanks for the explanation...
>
>
>> No, the -pkg.el file is generated by ELPA using the information from the
>> main file.  There is no need to write it yourself, in fact it is a waste
>> effort since it will be overwritten anyway.  Package-vc does the same
>> btw.
>>
>
> I was trying to create a multi-file package, but before submitting it to
> elpa-devel, I was testing locally if I did things correctly. So I defined a
> 'local archive' in a directory, then uploaded the .tar file to that
> directory/archive, and then checked if installing worked. When doing
> this, it seemed necessary to create the -pkg.el file manually.

The best way to test it would be to check out elpa.git from
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git and follow the manual
in there.

But unless you did something unusual, I would expect it to work (and if
it doesn't, someone here will be able to say why and how to fix it).

> Anyway, I understand things better now.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 10:35, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> wrote:
>
>> dalanicolai <dalanicolai@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Ah okay, I see.
>> >
>> > So I assume that this means that as a function 'define-package' was
>> > redundant, but we should still include a 'define-package' in the
>> > -pkg.el file of a multi file package?
>>
>> No, the -pkg.el file is generated by ELPA using the information from the
>> main file.  There is no need to write it yourself, in fact it is a waste
>> effort since it will be overwritten anyway.  Package-vc does the same
>> btw.
>>
>> > The initial comment of 'package.el' mentions that the -pkg.el file
>> > should consist of 'a call to' define-package. I would say this
>> > formulation is somewhat confusing/misleading then?
>>
>> You are right, that comment is outdated and should be revised.
>>
>> > Or is the -pkg.el file just outdated? And did I miss the news about it?
>>
>> No, the file is still required because it contains the package
>> descriptor.  The only thing that changed is that instead of the contents
>> being evaluated as code, they are read in and processed manually.
>> Without that file, you will notice that `package-load-descriptor'
>> wouldn't add the package to `package-alist', which in turn means that
>> `package--activate-all' wouldn't activate it.
>>
>> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 20:32, Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> >>
>> >> >> From: dalanicolai <dalanicolai@gmail.com>
>> >> >> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 17:21:04 +0100
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can I ask why 'define-package' was marked obsolete?
>> >> >
>> >> > It never did anything useful.  Its original implementation just
>> >> > signaled an error.
>> >>
>> >> I just looked up the definition from when package.el was merged[0], and
>> it
>> >> did stuff, mainly modifying `package-alist'.
>> >>
>> >> [0]
>> >>
>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/lisp/emacs-lisp/package.el?id=44198b6ee97bcb0ac88a5cadd1bf9b62048d0156#n513
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Philip Kaludercic
>> >>
>>

--
Philip Kaludercic