--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Patch for eglot: scala LSP binary name |
|
Date: |
Sun, 05 Feb 2023 21:15:48 +0000 |
Hello,
It seems that eglot expects the scala metals LSP server binary to be named
`metals-emacs` instead of `metals`. The included patch fixes this behaviour. At
least in the nix package manager the `metals` binary is simply call 'metals'.
However if other package managers distribute an alias for the binary as
'metals-emacs' as well we could instead do something like:
```
(scala-mode . ,(eglot-alternatives '("metals" "metals-emacs"))
```
0001-Patch-eglot-scala-LSP-server-binary-name.patch
Description: Text Data
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#61312: Patch for eglot: scala LSP binary name |
|
Date: |
Thu, 09 Feb 2023 12:18:12 +0200 |
> From: João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 18:45:39 +0000
> Cc: skykanin <skykanin@proton.me>, 61312@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> As usual, I defer this decision to you. I think it's reasonable to
> support both names, and I also think it's reasonable to stick to
> just the one we think is most used or representative of the
> program.
>
> In this case, I think "metals-emacs" is a contradiction of LSP's
> stated goal, which is to have editor-agnostic servers. But I
> don't know what the reasons were for doing this, I haven't
> investigated.
>
> It would be even more reasonable, I think, if distributions
> settled -- or mostly settled - on names for their binaries they
> distribute, much like *nix toolchains do. Of course we do not
> control that process, but maybe we could influence it instead
> of being constantly influenced by it.
Thanks, I went with supporting both names in Emacs 29. I cannot see
any harm in supporting both, once "metals" is the first name to check.
With that, I'm closing this bug.
--- End Message ---