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

Version: 31.1

Richard Lawrence [30/Jul  5:57pm +02] wrote:
> 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.

Thanks both for working on this.  Done and closing the bug.

-- 
Sean Whitton