>dim. 31 déc. 2023 at 13:07, Nicolas Goaziou <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Cayetano Santos <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> We distribute emacs packages from gnu/elpa by downloading .tar files
>> from there: I’m thinking about emacs-ggtags.
>>
>> My first concern is, what emacs-ggtags 0.9.0 corresponds to exactly ?
>> There is no 0.9.0 tag in upstream github reposotory, and, if I
>> understand it correctly, elpa just mirrors it
>>
>> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/log/?h=externals/ggtags
>>
>> So what exactly 0.9.0 is ? They bump on the 2018-07-26. Does it refer
>> to something more recent ? How to know ? This is for sure elpa
>> related, ... but we are distributing packages based on their criteria.
>> It would be great to understand how it goes (at this point, I cannot
>> clone elpa, for some reason).
>
> For Emacs packages, "Version" keyword in main file, here "ggtags.el", is
> more important than tags because each time that keyword is updated,
> a new release happens on ELPA. In a nutshell, "0.9.0" refers to the
> commit that updated the keyword.
Good to know, thanks.
>> My second concern is, how do we distribute some more up to date (think
>> emacs-magit), if we use a .tar from elpa ? When developer decides not
>> to / forgets to tag a new release, how do we proceed ? Do we use
>> elpa.gnu.org/devel instead ? I cannot see any example of guix
>> sources.
>
> As pointed out, upstream tags do not matter for ELPA release cycles.
I see.
Its a bit surprising, because the biggest advantage of guix is being
reproducible and deterministic: one always knows without any ambiguity
which code is in use, by just having a look at guix itself. Having an
extra layer between upstream and the package is kind of weird to me.
> If you need to package a more up-to-date package (with good reasons,
> I hope), you just point source to upstream instead of ELPA.
Regarding ggtags, it is from 5 years ago. More recent updates include
xref support, among others. I think its worth updating.
C.
