On 18/07/07, Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Jens, please review the previous discussions on this so we don't have to rehash exactly the same old arguments - in this thread I have earlier pointed to the past discussions. The problem arises when a package is an add-on for both GNU Emacs and XEmacs. In that case there ARE subpackages called emacs-foo and xemacs-foo for each flavour. But that means the main package name can't also be emacs-foo.
> 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.
Why? I want to install the muse package for Emacs. So I type yum install emacs-muse. That of course also pulls in emacs-common-muse. What is so hard about this for a user?
> 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.
Well, I agree, but this mailing list is the forum for that to happen. Emacs/XEmacs users are having the same opportunities to comment on package naming guidelines here that users generally have to comment on package naming (i.e. not a lot). -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
