Updates to Packaging Guidelines

[Christopher Stone]

On 5/22/06, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood at gmail.com> wrote:
> However, the rejected alternative would have had the package name
> emacs-foo, which contains the files for GNU emacs, with subpackages
> xemacs-foo and emacs-foo-common, if required (the current guideline
> seems to want a rename of emacs-auctex to emacs-common-auctex, even
> though the package is only built for GNU Emacs).

It would seem to me that if auctex is only usable for emacs (and not
xemacs) then it would be named emacs-auctex.  Simple as that.   If
auctex can be used for both emacs and xemacs then it would be called
emacs-common-auctex.  I'm not sure where the confusion lies?

It seems to me you are over-thinking this issue, and trying to make it
more complicated than it actually is.