On Sunday 27 May 2007, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > I would propose guidelines such as these: > 1) Packages which include add on modes for (X)Emacs should package the > byte compiled lisp files for these modes in a sub-package named > foo-emacs and/or foo-xemacs. I don't agree with that naming - it doesn't follow the "if it's bar for foo, call it foo-bar" naming strategy applied to just about everything else. emacs-foo and xemacs-foo would be better. Ditto emacs-foo-el, xemacs-foo-el. Otherwise, looks good to me. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
