On Sat, 5 May 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > On 2012-05-04 19:07, Santiago Vila wrote: > > IMHO, if there is anything to improve here, it would be emacs policy, > > not whatever individual packages do to follow it. > > Will you follow up on this emacs policy problem? I assume it could show > up in more packages ...
Well, I was talking specifically about the optimization suggested by AgustÃn (i.e. the fact that the install script is called twice). We want .elc files to be regenerated if you upgrade either the emacs flavour or the foo-el package containing emacs lisp code, and the install script does not know which package will be configured next, or which package has already been configured. The safe thing to do is to follow emacs policy, even if this means calling the script twice. Otherwise maybe we run the risk of building only with the "wrong" emacs (the one that has not been upgraded yet). Maybe this needs to be implemented in a completely different way, for example using dpkg triggers. Feel free to suggest that to the emacs maintainers. On the other hand, there is actually one thing which definitely needs to be improved, namely, this sample file: /usr/share/doc/emacsen-common/sample-package-install-foo.gz Following such sample to the letter will surely lead to bugs like this one in gettext-el. I'll file a bug for that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
