[csw-maintainers] cswclassutils

[Peter FELECAN]

Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> writes:

>> Debian, and all the other distros that I know are doing it by providing
>> .elc in the main package and .el in a separate, optional package. What
>> they are doing in addition is implement a mechanism of recompiling
>> site-lisp packages on a package by package basis --- they have a emacs.d
>> directory containing a script by package installing in site-lisp; this
>> is something that is probably worth the effort to implement.
>
> I don't think this is 'strictly' true.  It seems the preferred files
> (for packages I looked at) were the .el ones.  There is then some
> 'fancy framework' for building/installing these for multiple flavours
> of emacs, which can live together peacefully.  The debian policy[1]
> doesn't seem to explicitly state which files are to be shipped
> though.

It's strictly true for Emacs and that is the reference package. All the
others are just optional components for which an Emacs savvy user doesn't
have issues installing for himself or site wide. Of course, a savvy
packager do better for his users.

As stated in my previous message I'm not opposed to it but wished to
know the rational. As I'm not satisfied with that I'll continue to
supply the .elc in my packages and separately the .el

tat sat
-- 
Peter