On 7/13/20 8:20 AM, David Bremner wrote:
Doug Torrance <[email protected]> writes:
- couldn't the emacs component be another source-package ?
I considered this, but it's too tied to Macaulay2 itself. It doesn't
build by itself; several of the files in the M2-emacs submodule are
generated during the main Macaulay2 build. And Macaulay2 won't build if
the files in that submodule aren't present (which based on your later
emails, you've discovered!) The submodule was actually only split from
the main Macaulay2 repository a few weeks ago.
For new emacs related binary packages, I recommend using dh_elpa and the
elpa-* namespace.
You can find an example at
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianEmacsenTeam/elpa-hello?highlight=%28dh_elpa%29
presumably you'd want to keep the maintainer as Debian Science team
(whatever the correct address turns out to be).
Feel free to send mail to [email protected] (or join
#debian-emacs on oftc) for help.
Thanks for the note! I considered using dh_elpa when I decided to split
off the Emacs files into their own binary package. But dh_install
already installs them to the correct place, and there are not any test
suites to run. Is there another reason to use dh_elpa that I'm missing?
Also, the files aren't in ELPA and upstream at this point is just
targetting MELPA [1], so is the elpa- namespace appropriate? I also
considered using macaulay2-el, but I stuck with macaulay2-emacs since it
mostly matches upstream's name (M2-emacs) and matches with some similar
math-related emacs packages already in Debian (maxima-emacs and
singular-ui-emacs). I'm definitely open to changing it, though!
Thanks!
Doug
[1] https://github.com/Macaulay2/M2/issues/1097
