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 kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-04-25 14:30 EST ------- There are several questions here, and I'm not sure this bug is the best place to discuss this, but here are my thoughts: - Should elisp packages have their own namespace? (ie, like perl- packages) I don't know that this is worth it... how many elisp packages are out there that aren't already shipped with emacs/xemacs? If I am using repoquery right, not many: emacs: apel-0:10.6-8.fc5.noarch bigloo-emacs-0:2.8a-1.20060322.fc5.i386 emacs-auctex-0:11.82-3.fc5.noarch mew-0:4.2-2.fc5.i386 ruby-mode-0:1.8.4-3.2.i386 uim-el-0:1.0.1-2.fc5.i386 w3m-el-0:1.4.4-2.fc5.i386 xemacs: bigloo-xemacs-0:2.8a-1.20060322.fc5.i386 mew-xemacs-0:4.2-2.fc5.i386 w3m-el-xemacs-0:1.4.4-2.fc5.i386 - Should we byte compile at install time instead of build time? PRO: one package works for both xemacs/emacs. PRO: byte compiled files exactly match installed emacs/xemacs. CON: increase rpm install time. CON: if disk space runs out bad things happen CON: adds complexity CON: .elc files won't be verifyable via rpm In any case we can bring these questions to FESCO... but for this package I think we should just use the base package name and ship the compiled files, it can be changed if the policy is decided to change (as indeed other packages will need to be changed). Can we move this discussion to the extras list? -- 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.