Re: feature/integrated-elpa 4f6df43 15/23: README added

[Phillip Lord]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> The existing emacs source tree directory structure is sensible for a
>> monolithic project. However the whole idea here is to move away from a
>> monolithic structure, so the source tree contains only the emacs
>> core. Unmodified ELPA packages are imported into a packages directory
>> to be bundled for distribution.
>
> I guess we have different ideas of what will be left in the core,
> then.  I think most of the stuff will be left in the core.
>
> But in any case, having a separate sub-directory for every package,
> like what we have on ELPA, makes very little sense for a structure
> distributed in a release tarball.  You'd have many dozens of
> subdirectories, each one with one or a handful of files.

My build system supports immediate sub-directories -- we can
subcategorise package.el format directories if we choose. But, yes, my
proposal would mean more subdirectories with a few files all aimed at
the same package, rather than a few directories with lots of files all
doing different things.

Why is having directories a bad thing? Actually, I think it's a good
thing.

Phil