Re: [PATCH v4] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

On 30/04/2023 17:39, Ihor Radchenko wrote: Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 10:41:50 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4 4/8] Use compat.el library instead of ad-hoc compatibility function set Ihor, I have not noticed removal of ;; `flatten-tree' was added in Emacs 27.1. (defalias 'org-protocol-flatten (if

[PATCH v4] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

Max Nikulin writes: > I do not like lengthy emacs commands and make functions to generate > them. I think, it is better to move such code to a script. A proof of > concept is attached, however it is rather rough draft > > ./epm.el -Q --epm-dir $(emacs_pkgdir)/emacs-%e install compat >

Re: [PATCH v2] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

Ihor, I do not like lengthy emacs commands and make functions to generate them. I think, it is better to move such code to a script. A proof of concept is attached, however it is rather rough draft ./epm.el -Q --epm-dir $(emacs_pkgdir)/emacs-%e install compat ./epm.el -Q -L

Re: [PATCH v2] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

Max Nikulin writes: >> Sure. And you will have such option (EFLAGS). >> However, I decided to enable auto-downloading by default to not break >> the previous working compilation instructions. > > For me adding external dependencies is strong enough reason to change > compiling instructions. My

Re: [PATCH v2] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

On 13/04/2023 19:42, Ihor Radchenko wrote: Max Nikulin writes: My expectation is that make does not attempt to manage dependencies. For me it is OK to type an additional command to install them and to fail otherwise. Sure. And you will have such option (EFLAGS). However, I decided to enable

Re: [PATCH v2] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

Max Nikulin writes: >> +;; Package-Requires: ((emacs "26.1") (compat "29.1.4.1")) > > Is there a way to express (or (compat "29.1.4.1") (emacs "28.1")) to > avoid installing compat in the case of sufficiently new emacs? E.g. > dpkg/apt allows such alternatives. No, AFAIK: D.8 Conventional

Re: [PATCH v2] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

+;; Package-Requires: ((emacs "26.1") (compat "29.1.4.1")) Is there a way to express (or (compat "29.1.4.1") (emacs "28.1")) to avoid installing compat in the case of sufficiently new emacs? E.g. dpkg/apt allows such alternatives. Early I asked concerning compat-29.1.3. I would prefer to

Re: [PATCH v2] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

Max Nikulin writes: >> I know no other Emacs packages that manage dependencies using make. > > org-ql uses a helper shell script. org-roam and projectile use eldev > that is procedural, not declarative build system. I have not figured out > which way magit handles dependencies. I have no more

Re: [PATCH v2] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

On 03/04/2023 00:00, Ihor Radchenko wrote: Max Nikulin writes: Ihor, do added makefile rules follow best practices used by other Emacs packages in respect to dependencies? I know no other Emacs packages that manage dependencies using make. org-ql uses a helper shell script. org-roam and

[PATCH v3] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

Ihor Radchenko writes: >> It would be easier to review if this patch was split into 2 parts: >> - add compat.el dependency (unused) >> - replace functions to ones from compat.el > > Sure, but after spending half an hour trying to decouple this part, I > gave up and decided to leave it as is. And

[PATCH v2] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

I am attaching a slightly tweaked version of the patch that will make less use of internet connection (use only when really, really necessary), fixes variable expansion to be done once instead of in every make sub-process, and adds some extra info messages. Max Nikulin writes: > Ihor, do added

Re: [PATCH] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

On 01/04/2023 17:31, Ihor Radchenko wrote: See the attached patch set adding support of compat.el. Ihor, do added makefile rules follow best practices used by other Emacs packages in respect to dependencies? I do not like the idea of network queries on every make. In some cases I would

Re: [PATCH] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

Max Nikulin writes: > If dependencies may be satisfied by installing system packages then it > is easier to run Org from repository clone or to build new version of > elpa-org package. The patch provides EFLAGS variable that will allow supplying flags to emacs executable. One can just use

Re: [PATCH] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

On 02/04/2023 15:52, Ihor Radchenko wrote: And it should not matter anyway. We only need compat when Org mode is not built-in, but installed by other means. Normally, users will simply install Org from ELPA where we do not need to worry about older versions of Compat. If dependencies may be

Re: [PATCH] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

Max Nikulin writes: > On 01/04/2023 18:38, Daniel Mendler wrote: >> From my side, the change looks good. The current Compat version 29.1.4.x >> is stable with no known issues. > > Debian Bookworm and Ubuntu 23.04 (currently frozen testing and beta > accordingly) have elpa-compat-29.1.3.4 and

Re: [PATCH] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

On 01/04/2023 18:38, Daniel Mendler wrote: From my side, the change looks good. The current Compat version 29.1.4.x is stable with no known issues. Debian Bookworm and Ubuntu 23.04 (currently frozen testing and beta accordingly) have elpa-compat-29.1.3.4 and 29.1.3.2. Are some issues

Re: [PATCH] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

On 4/1/23 12:31, Ihor Radchenko wrote: > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> I have recently been contacted by the current compat.el maintainer >> asking if we are willing to adapt compat.el in Org. > > See the attached patch set adding support of compat.el. > > I had to update Org's build system to

[PATCH] Add compat.el support to Org (was: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el))

Ihor Radchenko writes: > I have recently been contacted by the current compat.el maintainer > asking if we are willing to adapt compat.el in Org. See the attached patch set adding support of compat.el. I had to update Org's build system to handle third-party packages. Please, give it a close

Re: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el)

On 1/30/23 20:40, Greg Minshall wrote: > i see, yes. i'm just thinking that, for a given release CUR (like i > know anything about org-mode release procedures!) we would use whatever > has been available in compat.el since release CUR-n (for whatever n we > use -- 2?), and supplement that, in

Re: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el)

Ihor, > >> 1. If compat.el happens to lack support of some function, we will need > >>to contribute to compat.el directly and synchronize Org releases with > >>compat.el releases. > > > > would a separate "org-compat.el" (in addition to compat.el) somehow > > solve this? (i worry about

Re: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el)

Greg Minshall writes: >> 1. If compat.el happens to lack support of some function, we will need >>to contribute to compat.el directly and synchronize Org releases with >>compat.el releases. > > would a separate "org-compat.el" (in addition to compat.el) somehow > solve this? (i worry

Re: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el)

Ihor, > Cons: > > 1. If compat.el happens to lack support of some function, we will need >to contribute to compat.el directly and synchronize Org releases with >compat.el releases. would a separate "org-compat.el" (in addition to compat.el) somehow solve this? (i worry about the

Re: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el)

Ihor Radchenko writes: > I have recently been contacted by the current compat.el maintainer > asking if we are willing to adapt compat.el in Org. I'm in favor of Org using Compat. And grepping around emacs.git, there are already two bundled packages (erc and python) with (require 'compat nil

Re: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org?

what daniel said sgtm On 1/27/23, Daniel Mendler wrote: > On 1/27/23 21:38, Tim Cross wrote: >>> As long as we keep our promise in terms of backward compatibility with >>> older Emacs versions, I'm all for it. >> >> I would agree. I would also add that even with the use of this package, >> I

Re: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org?

On 1/27/23 21:38, Tim Cross wrote: >> As long as we keep our promise in terms of backward compatibility with >> older Emacs versions, I'm all for it. > > I would agree. I would also add that even with the use of this package, > I don't think we should use it to increase the number of versions we

Re: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org?

Bastien Guerry writes: > Hi Ihor, > > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> I have recently been contacted by the current compat.el maintainer >> asking if we are willing to adapt compat.el in Org. > > Very nice! > >> WDYT? > > As long as we keep our promise in terms of backward compatibility with >

Re: [POLL] Use compat.el in Org?

Hi Ihor, Ihor Radchenko writes: > I have recently been contacted by the current compat.el maintainer > asking if we are willing to adapt compat.el in Org. Very nice! > WDYT? As long as we keep our promise in terms of backward compatibility with older Emacs versions, I'm all for it. --

[POLL] Use compat.el in Org? (was: Useful package? Compat.el)

Timothy writes: > I’ve recently come across an interesting looking library available on ELPA, > . I’m thinking in future this could allow us > to > both use newer features and also support older versions of Emacs, e.g. > > Org 10.X is developed for Emacs 28.1 and