Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >>>> @@ -827,7 +836,7 @@ package--reload-previously-loaded >>>> byte-compilation of the new package to fail." >>>> (with-demoted-errors "Error in package--load-files-for-activation: %s" >>>> (let* (result >>>> - (dir (package-desc-dir pkg-desc)) >>>> + (dir (package-lisp-dir pkg-desc)) >>>> ;; A previous implementation would skip `dir' itself. >>>> ;; However, in normal use reloading from the same directory >>>> ;; never happens anyway, while in certain cases external to >>> >>> Why do we need this change? >> >> Because we are only interested in the sub-directory containing the lisp >> files. > > But is there any harm in considering the whole parent directory instead? As mentioned below, I think the harm is that unintended error could appear. But I get your argument too, that mistakes should be fixed in general and having these pop up during byte compilation is a good way to make these more noticeable... >>>> @@ -891,7 +900,7 @@ package-activate-1 >>>> (package--reload-previously-loaded pkg-desc)) >>>> (with-demoted-errors "Error loading autoloads: %s" >>>> (load (package--autoloads-file-name pkg-desc) nil t)) >>>> - (add-to-list 'load-path (directory-file-name pkg-dir))) >>>> + (add-to-list 'load-path (package-lisp-dir pkg-desc))) >>>> ;; Add info node. >>>> (when (file-exists-p (expand-file-name "dir" pkg-dir)) >>>> ;; FIXME: not the friendliest, but simple. >>> >>> This should really not be needed (actually, this `add-to-list` is not >>> needed at all for any package (re)installed with Emacsâ¥26 (or maybe even >>> 25, can't remember)). The "normal" behavior is that it's the autoloads >>> file which adds to `load-path` (which makes it possible for that >>> autoloads file to add the `:lisp-dir` instead of the root dir, indeed). >> >> I see what you mean. But this would be change that is unrelated to >> package-vc, so it could just be removed directly on master. > > Removing it would is indeed a decision unrelated to `package-vc`. > But in the mean time you can simply not change that code. OK, I'll revert that change. >>>> @@ -1080,9 +1089,10 @@ package-autoload-ensure-default-file >>>> (defvar autoload-timestamps) >>>> (defvar version-control) >>>> >>>> -(defun package-generate-autoloads (name pkg-dir) >>>> - "Generate autoloads in PKG-DIR for package named NAME." >>>> - (let* ((auto-name (format "%s-autoloads.el" name)) >>>> +(defun package-generate-autoloads (pkg-desc pkg-dir) >>>> + "Generate autoloads for PKG-DESC in PKG-DIR." >>>> + (let* ((name (package-desc-name pkg-desc)) >>>> + (auto-name (format "%s-autoloads.el" name)) >>>> ;;(ignore-name (concat name "-pkg.el")) >>>> (output-file (expand-file-name auto-name pkg-dir)) >>>> ;; We don't need 'em, and this makes the output reproducible. >>> >>> I thought an alternative was for `package-vc.el` to call this function >>> with the `:lisp-dir` as `pkg-dir`, so we don't need to change this part >>> of the code. >> >> I might be missing something, but the previous signature was missing a >> package description object that the change required. > > No, I mean that the change should not be needed (and hence the change > in signature shouldn't be needed either). If there is any place where :lisp-dir this is needed, then here, because this is the place where the auto-load is generated containing the `load-path' modification. If I don't have the package description, then I cannot infer the right sub-directory. >>> Why do we need this? AFAIK this recurses into subdirectories so using >>> `package-desc-dir` still compiles all the files just fine, no? >> Same as above, if we know all the lisp code is located in one >> sub-directory, there is no need to compile everything in the >> directory -- which might contain test files or other scripts that were >> not meant to be compiled. > > In elpa-admin.el I compile all those ancillary files as well. > I'm not sure we should refrain from compiling them, actually. > [ But yes: their compilation will fail more often. I consider it > a problem in the packages. ] > >>> IIUC this part of the change is because `package-delete` does not delete >>> package-vc packages, right? If so, I support that 100%: >> >> This change reverts a previous feature, back when package-vc didn't load >> sub-directories, but cloned the repository into some XDG directory and >> created a symbolic link from ~/.emacs.d/elpa to the right sub-directory. >> To do that, knowledge of what package was been deleted was required: > > Good, thanks. > >> This is currently not done, but could be added. I am imagining checking >> of the package directory is the root directory of a repository (does >> that work for all VCS?), and if so double-prompting the user. But I >> would be opposed to preventing users from deleting packages installed >> using `package-vc', if only it would go against my workflow of fetching >> the sources for a package, preparing and sending a patch, and then >> reverting to the release package. > > I'm not saying we should prevent it, but just that we should be careful > to only delete with the full, express, and informed consent of the users. I agree.
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