[Fedora-packaging] Packaging guidelines for Emacsen add-on packages

Jens Petersen petersen at redhat.com
Wed Jul 18 00:50:42 UTC 2007

Sorry I failed to follow to this thread earlier, rolled off my radar. :/
(I need to find a better way of tracking followups to my posts...)

Tom "spot" Callaway さんは書きました:
> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 10:29 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> On 22/05/07, Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I still think the emacs-common prefix is confusing with the emacs-common
>>> package [...]

>> Jens, you're of course right. The fact that emacs-common is a
>> subpackage of emacs didn't come up during the discussions a year ago.
>> I did try for "emacsen" but people didn't like that so much, am not
>> sure why.

Well I don't like "emacsen" either...

>> Anyway, I'm happy to revisit the package naming guidelines for
>> (X)Emacs add-ons, Jens seems inclined to do so. Does anyone else have
>> strong feelings either way?

My suggestion is just to go with emacs-* rather than emacs-common-*.
It is a pretty small change and already quite a number of older
elisp packages follow it.

> I'm not convinced that emacs-common-foo is broken as a naming scheme.

IMHO it is too verbose and it makes it hard to read and find emacs packages.

> Then again, I'm not an emacs user.

I think it would be better if emacs/xemacs users had more say in setting 
the naming convention.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list