Re: package-vc support for :files keyword

[Philip Kaludercic]

(If possible, try to use a wide reply when responding to these messages,
so that I (and anyone else who would want to participate but it not
subscribed) get notified directly).

Daniel Fleischer <danflscr@gmail.com> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Right, as the primary technical inspiration for package-vc has been
>> elpa-admin, and therefore we (re-)use GNU ELPA-style package
>> specifications.
>
> Hi, I wasn't aware there's a style guide for ELPA packages.

This is not really a style-guide (which is something I would interpret
as concerning the contents of a package), but just a matter of how it
would be best for packages and the package archive to interact.

>> No, just like `:ignored-files' I do not see a sensible way to implement
>> it without compromising on the primary goal mentioned above.
>
> I don't understand this part: `:ignored-files' is part of the ELPA
> documentation and you are saying it's still not supported?

It is not supported by package-vc.  If you check (emacs) Fetching
Package Sources, then you'll see the supported keywords listed under the
"Specifying Package Sources" section.  Generally speaking, package-vc
is a subset of the keywords defined by elpa-admin.

>> Generally speaking, this is a style of package development that
>> {GNU,NonGNU} ELPA would like to advise against perusing, in favour of
>> a one-repo-per-package approach. Do you have a specific reason why you
>> think that something like `:{ignored-,}files' are useful in general
>> (i.e. not just because of the contingent fact that MELPA has
>> popularised this form of development).
>
> One example is tests; having test files either in the root folder or in
> a folder called "tests", how do you prevent them from being evaluated?
> They could have additional dev dependencies that you might not want to
> have. What is the ELPA guideline about that?

Test files are not evaluated/loaded, unless the user does so explicitly
or if the package developer were to force it via autoloads.  In the
former case, I would say that it is probably intended behaviour, in the
latter case this is a mistake made by the maintainer.

If the file is located under a tests/ directory (or any other name),
then it will not be added to the `load-path' to begin with.

The point here is, that if a user wants to contribute to a package with
tests, the tests shouldn't be hidden or even removed.  That is why I'd
even say it would be better to add the tests to the main lisp directory,
so that it is even easier to load them.

-- 
Philip Kaludercic