Re: [BUG] What about excluding .dir-locals.el from GNU ELPA tarball?

[Lin Jian <me@linj.tech>]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> writes:

> Having dir locals file in the tarball can be useful for the users who
> wish to edit Org mode's source code. We set a number of editing defaults
> there that are employed across Org codebase. These defaults make our
> life easier when users create patches by directly modifying Org mode code
> they got via ELPA.

I thought including .dir-locals.el may be a mistake because there are
only 4 packages (auctex, el-get, helm and org) among all packages in
GNU(-devel) ELPA and MELPA generating native compilation error about
.dir-locals.el in NixOS.

Now I know that including .dir-locals.el in org is not a mistake.
Instead, it is intended.  I will change our code in NixOS to not compile
.dir-locals.el.

The no-byte-compile cookie Morgan mentions is very interesting.  There
may be more packages including a .dir-locals.el file in their release
tarballs but not generating error in NixOS because their .dir-locals.el
has this cookie set.  add-dir-local-variable adds this cookie only since
Emacs 29[1] so older .dir-locals.el does not have this cookie.  I think
adding it to .dir-locals.el of org is a good idea.

[1]: 6539eb05889c783d782f114d9c072208d3080561