Bug#1138783: Bug#1137368: Missing dependency on elpa-emacsql-sqlite

Xiyue Deng <[email protected]> Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:21:01 -0700

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.emacsen
Message-ID	<874ijijen6.fsf__27634.7366788954$1780601013$gmane$org@debian-hx90.lan>

Sean Whitton <[email protected]> writes:

> Xiyue Deng [04/Jun  2:24am -07] wrote:
>> Control: severity 1138783 serious
>> Control: reassign 1137368 src:emacsql
>> Control: reassign 1138783 src:emacsql
>> Control: merge 1137368 1138783
>>
>> I took the privilege to reassign both Bug#1137368 and Bug#1138783 to
>> src:emacsql. I think the root cause of both issues is that the
>> elpa-emacsql package only contains the high-level interface without any
>> actual backend, so it cannot do much by itself. The package description
>> says: "EmacSQL is a high-level Emacs Lisp front-end for SQLite". So it
>> is expected that by installing elpa-emacsql it should provide the sqlite
>> backend at least.
>>
>> Currently, the 3 backend packages, elpa-emacsql-{sqlite,mysql,psql},
>> depend on elpa-emacsql. This prevents elpa-emacsql from depending on
>> elpa-emacsql-sqlite, which will introduce a circular dependency.
>> Reversing the dependency is also wrong, as elpa-emacsql-sqlite by itself
>> won't work without the support of elpa-emacsql. The same goes for other
>> backends. In this case, separating the backends inherently causes
>> circular dependencies for things to work.
>>
>> I believe in this case the separation of backends complicates the
>> handling with minimal gain: packages depending on emacsql by ELPA
>> convention need to be patched to depend on emacsql-sqlite (like case in
>> elpa-closql and org-roam), and the space saving is really not worth it -
>> all 3 backends code is less than 40kb combined.
>>
>> Therefore, I'd like to propose merging back all *.el back to
>> elpa-emacsql and make all backend packages dummy, which would solve all
>> the issues mentioned above.
>>
>> CCing Sean who did the initial packaging with separate backends and
>> the current maintainer Aymeric for comments. I will proceed with the
>> implementation once the plan is approved.
>
> This would mean that the elpa-* package names would no longer correspond
> to the upstream ELPA packages, right?  Are there no alternatives?

Actually after merging everything back into elpa-emacsql it is aligned
with upstream (NonGNU) ELPA[1] and MELPA[2], where there is only
`emacsql' with no package split.

(Maybe there was a package split but they also merged everything back?)

[1] https://elpa.nongnu.org/nongnu/emacsql.html
[2] https://melpa.org/#/emacsql

-- 
Regards,
Xiyue Deng

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 857 B)