From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) Subject: Re: Sync up the org in emacs master to org maint branch? Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 10:00:02 +0000 Message-ID: <8737fr1vx9.fsf@russet.org.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:15:40 -0800") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-devel" To: Kaushal Modi Cc: Bastien Guerry , emacs-org list , Emacs developers List-Id: emacs-orgmode.gnu.org John Wiegley writes: >>>>>> "KM" == Kaushal Modi writes: > > KM> If we are able the release the new packaging method in emacs 26.x, then we > KM> can remove org from emacs master completely, but if not, then at least as > KM> backup we have a newer org version to go out with that release. > > For Emacs 26, I intend the new ELPA process to be in place, whereby "default" > packages can be developed separately, and declare a way to get slip-streamed > into the release tarball so users are unaware of the separate nature of their > development. > > The CEDET developers have agreed to support this, and it sounds like you are > willing to as well. If Lars is game, I'd like for Gnus to be third major > package we do this for initially. That will reduce considerably the number of > external files we track in Emacs.git. > > The precise technical details have yet to be worked out, but it shouldn't be > too difficult. Phillip Lord has already began advance work on alternatives, > and I've received offers of help from others to work on this new process. > > I think now is a good time to begin. The first step is to solidify what is > meant by "tarball EPLA", and the means of slip-streaming a package's contents. > This will require at least two bits: > > - Some form of declaration to indicate how external files should appear in > the tarball. In order for the first version of this scheme to be as low > impact as possible, this should probably be done with a sexp in a data > file, to be checked in alongside the EPLA.git import of the project. > > - changes to "make dist" to integrate these files, and setup autoloading so > their inclusion is transparent to end users. > > Please comment with your recommendations for the first, and supporting changes > for the second, if anyone has ideas. Phillip, how is your work on these coming > along? At the moment it isn't. My original plan, if you remember, to have emacs core load ELPA packages with package.el. This requires some minor re-working of package.el (so that the -Q doesn't block them), some Makefile fiddling and introducing some standards to test file location in ELPA, so that it's possible to run ELPA tests from within core. The alternative proposal is, essentially, to copy files into the Emacs core build structure and move from there. Reading the discussion reinforces my feeling that the latter is the wrong approach, because it reinforces a distinction between packages on ELPA and packages in core above and beyond the location that they are stored and versioned. I can't see the advantage of doing this. I will probably try to work a little further on my package.el solution, although there seems little enthusiasm for this as the way forward. Phil