It previously was the case that packages that also shipped support
> files for emacs were required to ship the emacs bits in a sub-package.
> However, the result was that very few packagers actually complied, and
> indeed some just shipped the emacs bits as %docs.
>
> The move to u
On 4 January 2016 at 14:35, Jan Synacek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> long time ago, there was a request to create the emacs-filesystem
> package [1], so other packages could drop their emacs-specific files
> there. I believe it was done the other way around... Those files are
> useles
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:17:15 +0100, Jan Synacek wrote:
> > 2) A dependency on emacs-filesystem is primarily for packages, which store
> > files in those directories, but which do _not_ need Emacs to be installed.
> > Splitting off emacs- subpackages is not always the mo
Am 05.01.2016 um 11:17 schrieb Jan Synacek:
Michael Schwendt writes:
2) A dependency on emacs-filesystem is primarily for packages, which store
files in those directories, but which do _not_ need Emacs to be installed.
Splitting off emacs- subpackages is not always the most wise/convenient
Michael Schwendt writes:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:35:51 +0100, Jan Synacek wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> long time ago, there was a request to create the emacs-filesystem
>> package [1], so other packages could drop their emacs-specific files
>> there. I beli
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:35:51 +0100, Jan Synacek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> long time ago, there was a request to create the emacs-filesystem
> package [1], so other packages could drop their emacs-specific files
> there. I believe it was done the other way around... Those files are
&g
Hello,
long time ago, there was a request to create the emacs-filesystem
package [1], so other packages could drop their emacs-specific files
there. I believe it was done the other way around... Those files are
useless without emacs to begin with. I think packages that have emacs
snippets / modes
