[Fedora-music-list] Re: package naming question: muse -vs - MusE

[Jonathan Underwood]

On 08/05/06, Kevin Fenzi <kevin-fedora-extras at scrye.com> wrote:
> Anthony> It's not just you.  A few of us are of the same opinion.
> Anthony> Unfortunately the emacs muse package is now in Extras.  Is it
> Anthony> too late to rename it?  The name is a problem for anybody
> Anthony> with mixed Extras & PlanetCCRMA repositories.
>
> emacs-muse was discussed when the package was under review, but the
> package isn't just an emacs package, it also works with xemacs.
> I expect it would confuse a user of the xemacs-muse version to file
> bugs against a package called emacs-muse.

OK, I'm the culprit (i.e. I'm the packager for muse).

The naming issue was thrashed about in the review A LOT. FE guidelines
state that extentsion packages must be prepended with the package that
they are extending. Following this would require the emacs muse
package to be called... emacs-muse. BUT, the same tar ball builds for
xemacs. So it should also be called xemacs-muse. Ugh, see the problem.
The same tarball builds extension packages for TWO different packages,
and so he prepending guideline doesn't work.

So, the solution I proposed, (and it was mailed to the FE list for
discussion) was, for the muse package, several RPMs get spun:

muse (containing common files and docs, and required by all the packages below)
emacs-muse (containing compiled lisp stuff for emacs)
xemacs-muse (containing compiled lisp files for xemacs)
emacs-muse-el (source lisp files installed into the emacs tree)
xemacs-muse-el (source lisp files installed into the xemacs tree).

Now, this is the best I could do to fit with guidelines. But I'm more
than happy to change the package naming _IF_ we can come up with a
standard guideline for this situation. I am currently working with the
emacs-auctex packager to provide xemacs packages, so the issue will
come up there. And other packages I will submit soon. I can give a
number of examples.

Basically, we need a standard naming guideline for when a package
builds add-ons for more than one other package.

Once we have a set of guidlines, some of the (x)emacs packages in FE
that were inherited from core (eg mew, apel, flim) will have to be
adjusted to fit, as well.

So - can anyone come up with a better naming scheme than the one
above? I hope so :)

Unfortunately I can't find the review bugzilla where the lengthy
discussion of this previously took place (are review bugs deleted from
bugzilla once the package is submitted?).

Jonathan.