On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 11:20 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > On 20/07/07, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If I understand correctly, this would translate to: > > > > main package: emacs-foo, containing files specific to GNU Emacs > > sub package: emacs-foo-common, containing files not specific to any > > Emacs flavour > > sub-package: xemacs-foo, containing files specific to XEmacs > > sub-packages: xemacs-foo-el and emacs-foo-el containing the lisp > > source for each flavour. > > > > This is essentially was my very first original proposal, but people > > weren't keen on it as it uses the term emacs as a generalization for > > emacs flavours, and as a specific for GNU Emacs. > > I should also point out that the above proposal doesn't treat GNU > Emacs and XEmacs on an equal footing - the XEmacs package being a sub > package and the GNU Emacs package being the main package. The current > emacs-common-foo scheme does not have that bias. This is one of the main reasons why I prefer the current scheme, because I don't have to pull people apart while fighting "my editor is better" wars. :) ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
