bug#80996: 31; Libraries that still need to be assigned to packages

Sean Whitton <[email protected]> writes:

> Richard, do you have some thoughts on this?

I don't really understand the significance of this -- I'm not familiar
with that variable, and its docstring doesn't tell me much -- but FWIW:

> Jonas Bernoulli via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" [24/Jul 12:38am +02] wrote:
>> Jonas Bernoulli <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Some (mostly) new libraries still need to be assigned to a package
>>> in `package--builtins'.
>>>
>>> 1. New icalendar-{ast,macs,mode,parser,recur,shortdoc,utils}.el
>>>    should probably be part of icalendar.

Yes, I think.  But are `calendar' and `icalendar' already considered
distinct packages, as your next question suggests?  (All the code that I
think of as `icalendar'-related is in the lisp/calendar directory.  It
does form a distinctive subset of that code, but OTOH it does depend on
the calendar code, especially for date arithmetic.  Not sure what this
implies about whether they should be considered distinct.)

>>> 2. Old diary-lib.el should be part of calendar.  The library
>>>    commentary of calendar.el already says that this is the case.

Yes.

>>> 3. Should new diary-icalendar.el be a separate package or should
>>>    be part of of icalendar?

I would consider it part of `icalendar'.  If it can be part of both
`icalendar' and `calendar' (and those are distinct), I would include it
in both.  But putting it in `icalendar' seems like the right choice if
this variable is mostly about defining dependencies for other packages;
diary-icalendar will be useless without the rest of the icalendar-*
libs.

Hope that helps!

-- 
Best,
Richard