On 15/05/06, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am Montag, den 15.05.2006, 11:20 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: > >>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Jonathan> 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). > Jonathan> I much prefer emacsen-foo. > As do I, but if everyone else prefers the 'emacs-common' thats ok with > me too. :) [...] > I guess we just need to have FECSO vote and settle it once and for > all. :) > > Thorsten: Can you add that to the next meeting agenda? Done. Currently we have this suggestions as far as I can see: emacs-muse (and have also xemacs-muse in bugzilla to avoid confusion) emacs-common-muse emacsen-muse Did I miss one?
This also raises the meta question - is it ok for subpackages to have their own bugzilla entry? I think the answer has to be yes. For example, emacs-auctex really should have a subpackage for the preview latex style files and friends, called tetex-preview, such that functionality of the latex preview style files is made available for eg. LyX. This approach is recommended by upstream AUCTeX maintainers. Clearly, no user could be expected to know that bugs with tetex-preview should be filed against emacs-auctex. :) j. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
