guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Emacs Smartparens


From: Alex Kost
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Emacs Smartparens
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:12:43 +0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Catonano (2016-05-18 01:44 +0300) wrote:

[...]
> Smartparens uses Cask. Cask is a language specific project management
> tool.
>
> Exactly the kind of thing that Guix aims at (right ?)
>
> As far as I understand, Cask provides, among other things, some unit
> tests running facility
>
> There's a target in a makefile piloting Cask to run the test. So I
> understand. And there's a folder filled with .el files containing
> tests to be run.
>
> So, the makefile, the Cask file, Make, Cask and the tests folder are
> dependencies ONLY in development.
>
> So maybe there should be 2 outputs for this project, one vanilla
> output and one for development.

I think there is no need to do this.

> It gets worse
>
> There's a specific set of dependencies for every Smartparens submode
> (some languages have their own submode) so there should be an output
> for each of those

I think that a single output is absolutely OK: all these files (like
"smartparens-haskell.el") are a part of the whole smartparens package;
moreover there is no any "specific set of dependencies".  The only
dependency for smartparens is the "dash" library.

> And finally there's also a .travis.yml file, an images folder with
> some gif files in it, an org-mode file and some files ending with
> .feature
>
> All this seems an excess to me. A developer will be able to set up an
> environment with Make, Cask and other ad hoc dependencies and the
> files will be present in the package anyway, even if not used.
>
> It's a few kilobytes anyway.

I personally wouldn't care about cask, travis.yml and other files, and
would just create a plain package using emacs-build-system.  It will
provide the same functioning package as the one you would install with
Emacs (using "M-x list-packages").  I don't see a reason to deal with
all the additional complexity you mentioned.

-- 
Alex



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]