Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: emacs-muse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181404 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx 2006-04-23 13:38 EST ------- OK - I have submitted the package, updated the owners.list file and requested CVS branches - can't do more until that happens. However, and related to comment #16, the package naming issue oddity came up again. To recap, the SRPM is called muse-version.srpm, and it generates: muse-version.rpm emacs-muse-version.noarch.rpm emacs-muse-el-version.noarch.rpm xemacs-muse-version.noarch.rpm xemacs-muse-el-version.noarch.rpm So, the question is, what should I have used for the module name in owners.list ? I entered "emacs-muse", but on reflection I perhaps should have entered "muse". The issue then is that the module name no longer has the emacs- or xemacs- part in it, as required by the fedora-extras guidelines, even though (some of) the rpms do. In short, the fedora-extras guidelines fail for "addon" packages for sources which generate add-ons for two different programs (in this case emacs and xemacs). Thoughts? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.