On 17/05/07, Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My only comment so far FWIW is that I don't like naming the source packages emacs-common-<name> so much. I think it is a bit confusing with emacs-common (an emacs subpackage) already existing and it makes the source package names rather long. (I just noticed some submitted an emacs-common-<name> package for review...) For me at least it would make more sense just to name the main package emacs-<name> to be honest, and then sure there could still be a emacs-<name>-common package and xemacs-<name> package as appropriate. Traditionally that is what we did in the old days when we had elisp packages in RHL.
Jens, I happen to mostly agree with you. However, the guideline I created is taking the package naming guidelines for emacs add-ons as gospel, as this was discussed a lot before being decided on, and the reasons for chosing the current scheme were a bit convoluted. See these threads for the long discussions: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-May/msg00262.html (you'll need to read through a fair few posts to see how it evolved) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-May/msg00740.html Tom in particular was in favour of the "common" part of the naming scheme, as I recall. Question is, do we want to revisit this? J. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
