Hi, An issues has arisenduring review of the Muse package for (X)Emacs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181404 The FE packaging guidelines state: "If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a new functionality to an existing Fedora Core or Fedora Extras package without being useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact." However, it's frequently the case that an elisp package builds for both Emacs and Xemacs (and potentially any other flavours and unstable versions) making it ambiguous what the package name should be. (emacs-foo, xemacs-foo ??). To make matters worse, packages imported to FE from Core have used various schemes, often appending (x)emacs, rather than pre-pending. One suggestion is, for a tarball foo.tar.gz, to call the package foo (i.e. foo.spec, foo-version.src.rpm) but have it build these binary packages: foo-version.rpm: containing files common to all emacs (eg. docs), and required by the packages below emacs-foo-version.rpm: specific byte compiled package for Emacs emacs-foo-el-version.rpm: elisp elisp source files for Emacs xemacs-foo-version.rpm: specific byte compiled package for XEmacs xemacs-foo-el-version.rpm: source elisp files installed for XEmacs This has the disadvantage that the module name is then foo in bugzilla, and not emacs-foo or xemacs-foo, which may confuse users. Other proposals include calling the package emacs-foo, but that then might confuse xemacs users, or may result in having emacs-foo-xemacs, which sleems slightly absurd. Thoughts? (Perhaps worth reading the bugzilla before sharing them, tho). Jonathan -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
