Sean Whitton <[email protected]> writes: >> >> Normally I'm in favour of each upstream elpa package being a debian >> binary package, but I wonder if these needs (initially) to generate so >> many binary packages. elpa-rtags makes sense as a binary package, since >> at least one other package in melpa (malinka) depends on it. The others >> might be groupable into one binary package. I'm not sure if that would >> introduce significate maintenance overhead. > > If we don't use the separate binary packages, ${elpa:Depends} won't work > properly. This might create more work for maintainers. >
Sure. But currently nothing in melpa depends on any of these elpa packages other than rtags.el; I'm not sure how likely it is that something will in the future, given the nature of the packages. I could be wrong about the latter, of course. d
