On Friday 10 October 2008, Michel Salim wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Michel Salim
> When packaging a package that contains Emacs mode files, should
> Emacs subpackage require emacs(bin) or emacs?
Depends. In the vast majority of cases "emacs(bin)", but it the elisp stuff
specifically requires a full featured/X11 enabled emacs and does not work
with emacs-nox, then "emacs" would be appropriate. Ditto for xemacs.
> emacs(bin) seems to be
> commonly used, but this is not provided by RedHat/Fedora Emacs
> packages until version 22; RHEL 5.2 is still on 21.4 and thus EPEL
> packages would have to be specially handled.
A related question: why emacs(bin) ?
Most elisp packages work fine with either emacs or emacs-nox installed.
emacs(bin) is provided by both of them, and requiring it in lisp packages
where appropriate is helpful so that the full featured (and much more
dependency heavy) emacs package is not pulled in in setups that are fine
with -nox, such as headless servers etc.
xemacs provides xemacs(bin) too
so the question applies there. We don't ever plan for the binary to be
provided in a subpackage, do we?
We already have it kind of that way for both emacs and xemacs. The emacs,
emacs-nox, xemacs, and xemacs-nox packages don't contain much more than just
the respective executable.