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

[Kevin Fenzi]

>>>>> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood at gmail.com> writes:

Jonathan> On 10/05/06, Jonathan Underwood
Jonathan> <jonathan.underwood at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So - can anyone come up with a better naming scheme than the one
>> above? I hope so :)

Jonathan> To answer my own question - here's a proposal: I could
Jonathan> rename the muse package to emacsen-muse, such that the
Jonathan> binary rpms are:

Jonathan> emacsen-muse (containing the common stuff, and required by
Jonathan> the packages below) emacs-muse xemacs-muse emacs-muse-el
Jonathan> xemacsen-muse.el

Jonathan> The SRPM would be emacsen-muse, and that would also then be
Jonathan> the module name in bugzilla etc.

Jonathan> Terrible idea?

No, I like that idea. emacsen seems to convey that it works for more
than one emacs variant. :) 

Debian appears to use that in at least one package (emacsen-common),
and http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/emacs-en/Emacsen has it defined. 

Jonathan> Should this be the guideline specific to (x)emacs packages
Jonathan> which build for both flavours?

I think it should. Would be good to have them all be consistent. 

Jonathan> If the FESCO could reach a decision on this it would be
Jonathan> useful - then I can move the emacs muse package out of the
Jonathan> way, and let the packagers of the other two muse programs
Jonathan> fight over the vacant namespace :)

Sounds good. It didn't get discussed at this weeks meeting, but
perhaps one of the FESCO folks could put it up on the adgenda for next
week?

Jonathan> J

kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060511/76500f8f/attachment.sig>