[Fedora-packaging] Packaging guidelines for Emacsen add-on packages
Tom "spot" Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Fri Jul 20 13:01:59 UTC 2007
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 11:20 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 20/07/07, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, this would translate to:
> > main package: emacs-foo, containing files specific to GNU Emacs
> > sub package: emacs-foo-common, containing files not specific to any
> > Emacs flavour
> > sub-package: xemacs-foo, containing files specific to XEmacs
> > sub-packages: xemacs-foo-el and emacs-foo-el containing the lisp
> > source for each flavour.
> > This is essentially was my very first original proposal, but people
> > weren't keen on it as it uses the term emacs as a generalization for
> > emacs flavours, and as a specific for GNU Emacs.
> I should also point out that the above proposal doesn't treat GNU
> Emacs and XEmacs on an equal footing - the XEmacs package being a sub
> package and the GNU Emacs package being the main package. The current
> emacs-common-foo scheme does not have that bias.
This is one of the main reasons why I prefer the current scheme, because
I don't have to pull people apart while fighting "my editor is better"
More information about the Fedora-packaging