Re: feature/package-vc has been merged

[Stefan Monnier]

>> But for `package-vc` that's already the case since it has complete control
>> over how the `<foo>-pkg.el` and the `<foo>-autoloads.el` are generated.
>
> ..., this is handled by `package-vc--unpack-1' which up until now did
> not depend on a package specification, just a package description.  This
> is so, so that it can be invoked by `package-vc-refresh' or
> `package-vc-install-from-checkout' which all don't necessarily have
> specifications.  It would be imaginable to store the specification in a
> file like <PKG>-spec.eld, but there are too many files already so this
> is just getting more and more messy.
>
> If you believe that this is not worth it or shortsighted on my part,
> I'll implement the code necessary for what you suggest to work.

Ah... so this is extra info stored in the `<pkg>-pkg.el` file but only
for packages installed by `package-vc`.  So it's not expected to appear
in `<pkg>-pkg.el` coming from ELPA repositories.  But then it should not
be used in `package.el`, only in `package-vc-...` functions, right?

BTW, I'm beginning to sense that maybe instead of storing `:lisp-dir` in
the package description (of package-vc-installed-packages), we
should/could store there the whole package-spec.  This way
`package-vc-refresh` can use the package-spec and throw away the rest of
the package description.

For `package-vc-install-from-checkout`, we need to "invent" a package
spec anyway, right?


        Stefan