Hi Nicholas, Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@gmail.com> writes:
> Replying from my phone: > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2024, 22:40 Sean Whitton, <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> wrote: > > Hello, > > Sorry to keep asking for these minor changes, but it does help me > understand the change better. > > Why can't you just use debian/install to install the .nosearch? Are you > trying to avoid creating an empty .nosearch in the source package, or is > there some other reason? > > While we're discussing interface, I'm curious about a "debian:rules:dh --with > dh-elpa --nosearch, norecurse, flat, or > similar". > > For the fine-grained approach, I'm curious about special handling for > debian/foo.elpa: subdir/.nosearch. Like an > autoload cookie, but a " do not recourse and do not load" cookie. > > Ie can't this problem be resolved such that it enables declarative style and > doesn't require a debian/[foo.]install file? Are you suggesting that we make this a configuration for "--with dh-elpa"? I think that is outside the scope of this proposal, and I'm not sure making that configurable is desirable. Upstream has acknowledged non-recursive handling of `load-path' is intended, and supporting other types of handling is diverging from ELPA behavior. Or if you are suggesting we can make this a per-package setting of <package-root>/.nosearch, I think this is sub-optimal as it requires rebuilding/binNMU of all packages, while the current approach only requires a new dh-elpa version. Or maybe I'm missing something? -- Xiyue Deng
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
