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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: address@hidden (Phillip Lord)
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:06:53 +0100
> 
> > My suggestion is none of the above.  We should instead try to arrange
> > things so that when a Emacs is built from the repository, the build
> > process updates any packages from ELPA that need to be updated, as
> > part of the build.  And when an Emacs release tarball is tarred, each
> > package has its files put/updated in the corresponding directory under
> > lisp/.  If we succeed doing this, there will be no difference between
> > packages in the Emacs repository and in ELPA, as far as building and
> > releasing Emacs is concerned.
> >
> > Can we try doing that?
> 
> 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?

> 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.