Dima Kogan <d...@secretsauce.net> writes: > David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> writes: > >> Are you willing to maintain it upstream? Because the plan is that >> emacs-goodies-el is not going to be upstream for anything anymore. > > Hi. I just looked at it. If emacs-goodies-el isn't upstream for > anything, then where are the upstream sources coming from? Are there > multiple upstreams? In a perfect world would they all go to MELPA and > emacs-goodies-el would go away?
That's the plan, more or less. We'll see how it goes, but tentatively emacs-goodies-el could go away post-Buster. I'm not that set on MELPA-per-se, but rather on having an upstream that isn't Debian [1]. MELPA is an obvious place for upstreams to distribute packages but as long as there is version control and releases (and someone interested in fixing bugs), that's fine. > It looks like much of shell-command is already available in emacs > itself, so if there're any pieces that should be preserved, where should > they go? Into a separate package if they are substantial enough to warrant it. If not, that's a bit trickier. If it's just a few lines of customization I guess the options include upstream bug-reports (to emacs in general or to the appropriate package) and a page in emacswiki.org. Maybe someone-who-is-not-me would be interested in curating a collection of such bits, but it's not clear to me why that needs to happen primarily as a Debian package. I guess one possibility is that someone steps up to maintain a much reduced emacs-goodies-el that would contain only those bits left over. [1]: For the avoidance of doubt, I've no objection to Debian package maintainers being upstream for emacs packages in Debian. I myself maintain notmuch-emacs upstream, as well as the Debian package.
