Re: package-vc support for :files keyword

[Philip Kaludercic]

Daniel Fleischer <danflscr@gmail.com> writes:

> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>
>> (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).
>
> Will do.

Thanks.

>
> I need to learn more about this topic; I learned about `.elpaignore'
> which could be what I need. 

Right, package.el parses .elpaignore files to exclude files from byte
compilation, and nothing else.  

>                             So I won't discuss specific features at this
> point.

I am happy to help if there is anything else I can clarify.

> I will leave one point for thought: trying to gap the difference between
> ELPA packages and the "others" (melpa) could benefit everyone; it can
> lower the technical bar for external packages to join ELPA or non-GNU
> ELPA; packages will still be reviewed upon submission but things would
> work more smoothly as there will be only one recipe style.

The thing is, most of the time all a package needs to be added to GNU or
NonGNU ELPA is just a URL.  That is why package-vc-install can
frequently handle installing a package by just proving a URL to a
repository.  Just check the elpa-packages files for the two archives:

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/elpa.git/tree/elpa-packages
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/nongnu.git/tree/elpa-packages

I don't think will be possible for ELPA-style package specifications and
MELPA-style package recipes to be merged, nor do I see a urgent need for
that to happen.  The two archives don't only differ in superficial
points like here, in the way packages are represented and listed, but in
other fine technical details and philosophical matters.

> Thanks, 

-- 
Philip Kaludercic