Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes: > I cannot evaluate this, but isn't use-package a relatively stable > package, that is mostly being bug-fixed? There really aren't that many > new features being added all the time, so this might not be that > important. Or am I mistaken? I don't think you're wrong, however I don't see any clear benefits to making it a :core package as compared to just adding it as a normal package, as long as it's developed externally. It's less work, and seems to be good enough for org-mode, for example. But you're right that it might not be that important. Either or works. > No, we have recently decided to scrap that documentation source in > favour of the documentation generated on elpa.gnu.org -- that is if I > understood everything correctly. OK, thanks. I now did my homework and read the related threads (sorry for not doing that first). 1. Does that mean that it is actually preferred to make all changes directly in use-package.texi now? 2. Should use-package.org just be scrapped, then? (I guess that, if the answer is yes, we should first export the latest version of that file to use-package.texi, and then continue from there.) 3. Payas mentioned working on the texinfo sources. What's the status of that work? I'm ready to get started, but it seems better if we can avoid doing the same work twice, so maybe I should base it on his latest version? > How does Org-mode distinguish between @key, @kbd, @code and @var? See org-setup.org, org.org and the generated file org.texi. Basically they use org-mode macros to add texinfo markup.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4