On 27/05/07, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Yes - I had that thought initially too. But it becomes a question of is the mode an add on for Emacs or an add-on for gnuplot (in the example given). In the end, I couldn't decide either way. Thing is, current precedent is foo-emacs, so if we're more infavour of emacs-foo, which is much more consistent, I agree, then a fair few packages will need to be renamed. OTOH, whatever guideline we introduce here will mean some packaging work will need to be done on existing packages. So perhaps we should just get it right once and for all. I'll wait a while, and if there are no more comments I'll add these guidelines along with your namingporeference to the wiki page. J. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
