Re: How to install documentation in sub-directory with Package VC?

[Jonas Bernoulli]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

>> We only provide :url, and where appropriate :branch, :vc-backend and
>> :maintainer.  
>
> :maintainer is currently not used

Removed.

Could you please ping me when you add new properties?

> (TBH I am not sure what the point of it is in elpa-admin to begin
> with),

Sending emails to a package's maintainer.  It is used to send every
pushed commit for example.

>> We don't set :doc or :lisp-dir (yet?).
>
> Do you think it could be possible to support :doc and :lisp-dir.  IIUC
> the issue is that MELPA only accepts a list of files to include when
> bundling a package (:files) and the build system would have to infer
> what what is?

Why is :doc needed?  I think package-install simply runs makeinfo on all
texi files, but of course it can rely on them being at the top-level.
It might end up trying (and failing) to directly process gpl.texi and
similar.  But still, cannot package-vc simply do that too?

The value of :doc can also be an org file and we cannot just blindly try
to transcode *all* org files to texi.  But Melpa doesn't support
exporting ort to texi, so packages distributed there cannot assume that
that happens.  (I wish Melpa supported this and I actually implemented
it, but the main Melpa maintainers didn't want to merge it for security
reasons.)

I am not sure determining :lisp-dir from :files on the archive's side,
is easier and/or more reliable than package-vc doing it itself based
solely on what it finds in the latest commit.  In Borg I use "if lisp/
exists, then use that, else use ./" and that works for 99% of all
packages.

I think it would be better to first try to add some heuristics to
package-vc.  If that doesn't work well enough, we can still later
make package-build generate more elpa-admin-style metadata.