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

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > >>> 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.)

We don't have a rule about this.  To have `calendar' and `icalendar' as one
package would be ok.  To have each of them as one package, as now, is ok.
New `icalendar-*.el' files could go with the existing `icalendar-*.el' files
or become a separate package.  It's a matter of tradeoffs of various
practical conveniences.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)