On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 10:29 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > On 22/05/07, Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I still think the emacs-common prefix is confusing with the emacs-common > > package but I should have made that comment a year ago I guess. ;-) > > There are alternative prefix's (elisp or emacsen) that could be (have > > been) used but perhaps it is too late now? IMHO it would be better to > > avoid hyphened prefixes in package naming afap possible in the future. > > Jens, you're of course right. The fact that emacs-common is a > subpackage of emacs didn't come up during the discussions a year ago. > I did try for "emacsen" but people didn't like that so much, am not > sure why. > > Anyway, I'm happy to revisit the package naming guidelines for > (X)Emacs add-ons, Jens seems inclined to do so. Does anyone else have > strong feelings either way? I'm not convinced that emacs-common-foo is broken as a naming scheme. It seems more intuitive than emacsen to me. Then again, I'm not an emacs user. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
