On 22/05/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Per FESCO, there was one major addition to the Packaging Guidelines: The naming scheme for addon emacs compatible components is: emacs-common-foo, where foo is the upstream name of the component.
This is unclear as regarding the naming of the sub package names for the different flavours of emacs... guidelines now seem to indicate: emacs-common-foo for the package name and files common to all flavours. and subpackage names like xemacs-emacs-common-foo emacs-emacs-common-foo or perhaps, emacs-common-foo-xemacs etc etc. Seems a bit silly (!) However, the rejected alternative would have had the package name emacs-foo, which contains the files for GNU emacs, with subpackages xemacs-foo and emacs-foo-common, if required (the current guideline seems to want a rename of emacs-auctex to emacs-common-auctex, even though the package is only built for GNU Emacs). Eg. http://physics.open.ac.uk/~ju83/emacs-muse.spec Honestly, I really think this guideline should be reconsidered. Jonathan. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
