Re: [Emacs-diffs] feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added

[Phillip Lord]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> We could do, but then it means that packages will use two different file
>> organisations; one for when they are in package.el format, and one where
>> they are not. Aside from being more work for the build, I think this
>> will be fragile. Just as a simple example consider this file layout:
>> 
>> package/foo/foo.el
>> package/foo/test/simple-test.el
>> 
>> package/bar/bar.el
>> package/bar/test/simple-test.el
>> 
>> where does simple-test.el go?
>
> These two files should be renamed to foo-simple-tests.el and
> bar-simple-tests.el.
>
> More generally, ELPA packages that are distributed as part of the
> Emacs tarball will have to use our naming conventions, and those
> include test files.  Right?

Yes. We don't have naming conventions for test files yet, and they will
need to be added.


>> Emacs currrently has two systems for building packages -- one in core,
>> one in package.el format. Adding support package.el format in core means
>> that package developers only have to support one of these.
>
> What do you mean by "system for building packages"?  AFAIK, we don't
> build packages in core, we just byte-compile them and extract
> autoloads from them.

Yep, that's building them in the lisp sense -- also the documentation.
package.el does the same thing (generates autoloads, byte-compiles, and
additionally generates a -pkg.el file).

Phil