On 12/05/06, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/05/06, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not an emacs users, but from all I can see I'll vote for the > solution spot suggested (e.g. emacs-common-foo). I much prefer emacsen-foo. Why do we need the word "common" in a package name? It makes sense in a subpackage name, but in a package name, it's confusing.
To go full circle, we could call the packlage emacs-foo, which builds xemacs-foo as a subpackage, and also a emacs-foo-common subpackage, required by both emacs-foo and xemacs-foo. This would no longer be treating the xemacs package on an equal footing, but hey ho. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
