I think this is due an update. I've chosen to update to the latest
version that has been merged into Melpa.
Unfortunately we now need to hack around it trying to run VCS
commands.
My Emacs configuration with thirty-something leaf packages seems fine
after the rebuild.
This commit causes melpaBuild to use package-build from melpa/package-build
instead of melpa/melpa. Development of package-build happens in the former
repository whereas the latter is much larger, containing also the MELPA
recipes. We do not need to fetch the MELPA recipes from melpa/melpa, as we fetch
them one-by-one for Nixpkgs.
No real function change here, but this updates the trivial and melpa builders to
be formatted more consistently with the rest of the builders, and swaps
`eval "$preBuild"` for the more standard `runHook preBuild`.
package-build expects the recipe file name to match the Emacs package
name. `melpaBuild` takes an extra argument `ename` for the Emacs package
name (default: `pname`, the Nix package name) which is used to name the recipe
file.
Fixes: #43893
See also: #43609
All package sets are simultaneously updated to accommodate changes to
package-build. Due to new restrictions in package-build, all packages using
`melpaBuild` must now provide a recipe file, even those packages which are not
included in upstream MELPA.
Building packages requires package-build.el from Melpa, but installing
packages only requires package.el. Packages from ELPA are already built,
so there is no need to involve package-build.el.
When building a package from a Melpa recipe file, get the Emacs package
name from the recipe. Nix is more restrictive about packages names than
Emacs, so the Nix name for a package is sometimes different.
This simplifies melpa builder by merging with it my old emacs modes builder,
adds better instructions and support for overrides in emacs-packages.nix,
and renames some emacs-related stuff in all-packages.nix for sanity reasons.
I declare this backwards compatible since direct uses of emacsPackages in
configuration.nix are very unlikely.
