[Fedora-packaging] Packaging guidelines for Emacsen add-on packages
jonathan.underwood at gmail.com
Fri Jul 20 10:06:52 UTC 2007
On 18/07/07, Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
Jens, please review the previous discussions on this so we don't have
to rehash exactly the same old arguments - in this thread I have
earlier pointed to the past discussions.
The problem arises when a package is an add-on for both GNU Emacs and
XEmacs. In that case there ARE subpackages called emacs-foo and
xemacs-foo for each flavour. But that means the main package name
can't also be emacs-foo.
> > 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.
Why? I want to install the muse package for Emacs. So I type yum
install emacs-muse. That of course also pulls in emacs-common-muse.
What is so hard about this for a user?
> > 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.
Well, I agree, but this mailing list is the forum for that to happen.
Emacs/XEmacs users are having the same opportunities to comment on
package naming guidelines here that users generally have to comment on
package naming (i.e. not a lot).
More information about the Fedora-packaging