htmlz-mode does not follow elisp package format

[danielkrajnik]

I've wasted days trying to understand why htmlz-mode doesn't get loaded. Turned out that it wasn't prepared in package.el "format".

Why on earth would you not just load that simple file? Why is some arbitrary format needed? Please spare others all the effort required to comprehend mess that is emacs "documentation".

[progfolio]

I've wasted days trying to understand why htmlz-mode doesn't get loaded. Turned out that it wasn't prepared in package.el "format".

I'm sorry to hear that.
It looks like there are several bugs in the way the package is authored:

1. It doesn't declare it's dependencies in the package meta-data header via Package-Requires.
2. It, instead, defines a new function with a prefix outside of its purview to "require" packages.
3. It does not autoload any commands for the user.

Why on earth would you not just load that simple file?

Packages generally aren't loaded by the package manager for a number of reasons.
The main reason is users usually want to choose when to load their packages. Forcing a load can slow down Emacs start-up time, increase memory usage, etc. That decision doesn't belong to the package manager (If you've seen use-package or similar init macros, that's their wheelhouse. They often integrate with package managers, too).

However, properly formatted packages are "activated" by straight.el (and other elisp package managers). Activation involves adding the package's directory to load-path so that (require 'my-package) will work. It also typically involves loading an autoloads file. The autolaods being generated for htmlz-mode aren't helpful because the author didn't specify anything to autoload.

Why is some arbitrary format needed?

The format is not arbitrary. It's well documented:

https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Packaging.html

I'm sorry you ran into a package that does not follow that format, but that's a bug with the package, not the package manager. You should point out the issues detailed above to the package author on their issue tracker if you'd like to see them resolved.

[raxod502]

To add - straight.el isn't responsible for the Emacs packaging format. These were determined by the Emacs development team for package.el and you'd be best off providing feedback on emacs-devel if you have issues. In fact, straight.el is considerably more lax than the built-in package manager when it comes to formatting requirements for packages.

[danielkrajnik]

thanks for all the adivce, there's a lot to unpack here, but long story short, it was solved by adding a single
;;;###autoload
line over (define-minor-mode ...) line in that package. I've mentioned that to the author of that package, as well

Or at least I hope that was it...

[progfolio]

Glad to hear it.
That solves the problem 3 mentioned in my comment above.
They'll still want to add proper "Package-Requires" metadata as described here:

https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Simple-Packages.html

so that straight and other package managers can properly install any dependencies of the package. This will also allow them to remove the "require-package" function they defined in lieu of letting a package manager use that data.

[danielkrajnik]

True, I've mentioned it as well: 0xekez/htmlz-mode#3