> the "-pkg\\.el$" exclude might have existed for a reason > (I don't know which, put perhaps byte compilation).
Perhaps it should be ignored during byte compilation, but still installing it seems to be a good idea. Ok, let's wait for Maxim answer. > I know people take package.el for granted nowadays, but alternative > package managers for Emacs have their uses. This is not just a Guix > thing :) Why not take it for granted?) It's built-in since 24(?), elpa/melpa archives respect it format and provide package descriptions in -pkg.el format, AFAIK. Most other package managers seem to respect "infrastructure" provided by package.el. For example you can view a list of packages with `list-packages` even for packages installed with other PMs (Nix for example), BTW they keep "package.el" directory structure. https://0x0.st/-BxL.txt Don't see too many reasons not to follow this format. I mean it's easily fixable with current directory structure just by stripping "/elpa" suffix from package-directory-list, but why we would do that emacs "customization" instead of just placing packages under /elpa subdirectory and make everything work out of the box? > I don't think we want to fake elpa that hard. Two iterations ago it > was .guix.d and people didn't really like it. Do you mean the package installation path was site-lisp/.guix.d/NAME-VERSION? > My subdirs.el patch is also stretching it. Not sure what you mean by this, sorry, I'm not native speaker and automated translation doesn't make sense to me. Rephrase please. I do not insist on any particular directory structure, just curious why not to stick to the widely adopted format. Once again, thank you for placing packages into subdirectories, now the site-lisp structure seems more organized and less polluted + problem with describe-package (C-h P) and list-packages are easily fixable. Appreciate your work!) -- Best regards, Andrew Tropin