Hello, On Sat, Jun 09 2018, David Bremner wrote:
> Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> writes: > >> P.P.S. I can start with one of debian-el, devscripts-el, or >> dpkg-dev-el as a proof of concept, and it will also be easier to just >> iterate over the *.els once these exceptions have been dealt with. I >> assume that they ought to remain grouped together and become >> elpa-debian-el, elpa-devscripts.el, and elpa-dpkg-dev.el, with >> repositories on salsa named debian-el, devscripts-el, and >> dpkg-dev-el. > > I've actually done this, before finding this message. > > See > > https://salsa.debian.org/emacsen-team/dpkg-dev-el > https://salsa.debian.org/emacsen-team/debian-el > > The former depends on the latter, as it turns out. > > FWIW, I don't think any binary package ought to start with "elpa" and > end "-el" or "\.el", but other than that I'm flexible about the > naming. > > I (so-far) had the idea that "dpkg-dev", and "debian" could be > upstream packages in e.g. melpa-stable. OTOH, "debian" is annoyingly > generic, so that might have to change. If they are native packages, they should not be published to MELPA. I think they should probably be native packages. -- Sean Whitton
