Sorry I failed to follow to this thread earlier, rolled off my radar. :/
(I need to find a better way of tracking followups to my posts...)
Tom "spot" Callaway さんは書きました:
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 [...]
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.
Well I don't like "emacsen" either...
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?
My suggestion is just to go with emacs-* rather than emacs-common-*.
It is a pretty small change and already quite a number of older
elisp packages follow it.
I'm not convinced that emacs-common-foo is broken as a naming scheme.
IMHO it is too verbose and it makes it hard to read and find emacs packages.
Then again, I'm not an emacs user.
I think it would be better if emacs/xemacs users had more say in setting
the naming convention.
Jens
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
