[csw-maintainers] cswclassutils

Ben Walton bwalton at opencsw.org
Thu Jul 16 21:35:38 CEST 2009

Excerpts from Peter FELECAN's message of Thu Jul 16 14:34:23 -0400 2009:
> 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.

Ok.  I think we've both been clear on our preferences.  You have your
reasons and I'm ok with them.

> 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

Ok.  I'm interested in standardizing something for this though.  It
would be better for the users if all of our emacs packaged bits
presented a similar experience.

Shall we agree then that any package providing emacs add-on
modules/functionality should provide .elc files in the primary package
and offer an _el version of the package to deliver the .el source
files?  That's what you've said, but should this become the formal

A side thought: Does it make sense to have this policy be different
than the python policy?  In theory, python add-ons could ship only the
.pyc/.pyo files and provide _py packages for the .py source...I'm
wondering this aloud for my own curiosity more than anything.

Ben Walton
Systems Programmer - CHASS
University of Toronto
C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302

GPG Key Id: 8E89F6D2; Key Server: pgp.mit.edu
Contact me to arrange for a CAcert assurance meeting.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20090716/c1ab3ba7/attachment-0002.asc>

More information about the maintainers mailing list