On Wed, Sep 01 2021, Andrew Tropin wrote: > On 2021-08-30 15:33, Xinglu Chen wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 30 2021, Andrew Tropin wrote: >> >>>> Why would it be more consistent to make a separate package? Making a >>>> separate package is usually used for packaging a slightly different >>>> version of the “regular” package, e.g., ‘emacs-next-pgtk’ adds native >>>> compilation and pure GTK support for Emacs., ‘emacs-no-x’ removes X >>>> suport for ‘emacs’. ‘emacs-notmuch’ isn’t really a different version of >>>> ‘notmuch’, it’s just ‘notmuch’ but with all the non-Elisp stuff >>>> removed. This is usually what using different outputs tries to achieve, >>>> e.g., separate documentation from the main package, or in this case, >>>> separate Elisp stuff from the main package. >>>> >>> >>> Almost all elisp packages in Guix have a emacs- prefix, so as a user I >>> expect to find notmuch*.el in emacs-notmuch package and notmuch binary >>> in notmuch package, despite the fact that upstream distributes the >>> source code for both of them in one tarball. >> >> Good point, however, If we were to have separate ‘emacs-’ packages for >> the packages that also contain Elisp stuff, should those packages still >> include the Emacs package in their output, i.e., should the ‘notmuch’ >> package still include notmuch.el, or should the Elisp stuff only be in >> ‘emacs-notmuch’? >> > > IMO, notmuch package should not include Elisp stuff, at least I don't > see use cases, where it can be useful, but see where it can be > harmful.
Should this apply to other packages that contains Elisp stuff too, or is it specific to ‘notmuch’? Cc’ing guix-devel to see what other people think before we start breaking people’s setups. :-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
