[Bug 181404] Review Request: emacs-muse

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: emacs-muse


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181404





------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-04-25 14:30 EST -------
There are several questions here, and I'm not sure this bug is the best place to
discuss this, but here are my thoughts:

- Should elisp packages have their own namespace? (ie, like perl- packages)
I don't know that this is worth it... how many elisp packages are out there that
aren't already shipped with emacs/xemacs? If I am using repoquery right, not many: 
emacs:

apel-0:10.6-8.fc5.noarch
bigloo-emacs-0:2.8a-1.20060322.fc5.i386
emacs-auctex-0:11.82-3.fc5.noarch
mew-0:4.2-2.fc5.i386
ruby-mode-0:1.8.4-3.2.i386
uim-el-0:1.0.1-2.fc5.i386
w3m-el-0:1.4.4-2.fc5.i386

xemacs:

bigloo-xemacs-0:2.8a-1.20060322.fc5.i386
mew-xemacs-0:4.2-2.fc5.i386
w3m-el-xemacs-0:1.4.4-2.fc5.i386

- Should we byte compile at install time instead of build time?
PRO: one package works for both xemacs/emacs. 
PRO: byte compiled files exactly match installed emacs/xemacs.

CON: increase rpm install time. 
CON: if disk space runs out bad things happen
CON: adds complexity
CON: .elc files won't be verifyable via rpm

In any case we can bring these questions to FESCO... but for this package I
think we should just use the base package name and ship the compiled files, it
can be changed if the policy is decided to change (as indeed other packages will
need to be changed). Can we move this discussion to the extras list?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.