Ben Walton <[email protected]> writes: >> As stated in my previous message I'm not opposed to it but wished to >> know the rational. As I'm not satisfied with that I'll continue to >> supply the .elc in my packages and separately the .el > > Ok. I'm interested in standardizing something for this though. It > would be better for the users if all of our emacs packaged bits > presented a similar experience. > > Shall we agree then that any package providing emacs add-on > modules/functionality should provide .elc files in the primary package > and offer an _el version of the package to deliver the .el source > files? That's what you've said, but should this become the formal > policy?
I think so. > A side thought: Does it make sense to have this policy be different > than the python policy? In theory, python add-ons could ship only the > .pyc/.pyo files and provide _py packages for the .py source...I'm > wondering this aloud for my own curiosity more than anything. I'm leaning toward supplying separate _py packages but not having a vested interest I remain neutral. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
