Releases of jedmodes
Jörg Sommer
joerg at alea.gnuu.de
Mon May 29 20:01:49 UTC 2006
Hello G.,
G. Milde schrieb am Mon 29. May, 11:24 (+0200):
> On 27.05.06, Jörg Sommer wrote:
> > Paul Boekholt schrieb am Sat 27. May, 12:41 (+0200):
> > > On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:15:52 +0200, Jörg Sommer <joerg at alea.gnuu.de> said:
> > >
> > > Missing autoloads are not a bug BTW, the autoload would itself become
> > > a bug if the autoloaded function moves to another file.
> >
> > If your mode is not loadable without additive actions it's a bug. The
> > mode does not run and I would not request the users to find out what
> > should they load before the can use a mode.
>
> Principally, a mode that doesnot evaluate "out of the box" is a bug
> in the jed-extra package (not necessarily in the mode, if adequate
> documentation is provided).
Right. Let me clarify one thing. When I talk about a bug, I mean a bug
for the package, e.g. such one that we get from the users when we release
the package.
> However, this is not the case for the X modes in jed-extra/extra. These
> are not in the jed library path by default and the documentation clearly
> states that they:
>
> * are experimental or exotic
> * may require additional configuration from the users part
OK. Take it as a goody for the users.
> Currently my compromise is:
>
> * modes in jed-extra/, jed-extra/utils and jed-extra/drop-in are
> self-contained, i.e. define the needed autoload() and requires() to
> run without additional configuration.
What do you mean with „self-contain“? For example, cal.sl (a drop-in
mode) misses a requires() for keydefs. Can you create a dpatch?
> * Modes that either
>
> - need additional configuration steps
What are „additional configuration steps“?
I saw some modes (rfcview come into my mind) they need some proper
configuration, e.g. setting some custom variables. Debian provides the
RFCs in the packages doc-rfc*. I intend to make such configurations (e.g.
patch the mode or what else is needed) to make them easier usable for
Debian users.
> I.e. IMO
>
> * there is no need for a missing autoloads() patch for modes in
> jed-extra/extra.
Right, but if it is done it's a goody for our user. But we should split
this patch from the patch of the modes.
> * missing autoloads() in the "basic" modes are to be fixed, either
> upstream (my preference)
But upstream refuses this. As Paul said „Missing autoloads are not a bug
BTW, the autoload would itself become a bug if the autoloaded function
moves to another file.“
> or, by creating (and maintaining!) a dpatch.
I don't see this as a big problem.
Jörg.
--
Nicht was du bist, ist es was dich ehrt, wie du bist bestimmt den Wert.
Wünsche hat man oft und viel, nur wer lernt erreicht sein Ziel.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-jed-devel/attachments/20060529/e9a81a5c/attachment.pgp
More information about the Pkg-jed-devel
mailing list