Re: package problems
Andy Piper <andyp(a)parallax.co.uk> writes:
At 12:41 AM 5/14/98 -0700, SL Baur wrote:
> No, it shouldn't. A "regular" package means no
single lisp file can
> be removed safely. A "single-file" packages means each lisp file is
> independent and any one (or more) of them may be removed at will.
> That is not and will not be the case with os-utils and edit-utils.
But add-little-package.sh loses ...
I've just removed `add-little-package.sh' from the XEmacs distribution.
The canonical definition of package types:
`regular': No lisp file may be removed without grievious and possible
fatal loss of functionality. "The XEmacs maintainers shall not be held
responsible."
`single-file': A package consisting of independent lisp files any of
which may be deleted by the end user[1] without care about the
consequences and if this causes failure due to dependencies on other
XEmacs maintainer supported packages, the XEmacs maintainers are at
fault.
`add-little-package.sh' was a relic from the early implementation of
XEmacs packages. Rather than distributing the many independent lisp
files as single files I felt it was more convenient to bundle them up
by functionality.
Footnotes:
[1] Procedures to update auto-autoloads.el/custom-load.el to be
provided.