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

Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood at gmail.com
Thu May 17 10:06:54 UTC 2007

On 17/05/07, Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> wrote:
> My only comment so far FWIW is that I don't like naming the source
> packages emacs-common-<name> so much.  I think it is a bit
> confusing with emacs-common (an emacs subpackage) already existing
> and it makes the source package names rather long.  (I just noticed
> some submitted an emacs-common-<name> package for review...)
> For me at least it would make more sense just to name the main package
> emacs-<name> to be honest, and then sure there could still be a
> emacs-<name>-common package and xemacs-<name> package as appropriate.
> Traditionally that is what we did in the old days when we had elisp
> packages in RHL.

Jens, I happen to mostly agree with you. However, the guideline I
created is taking the package naming guidelines for emacs add-ons as
gospel, as this was discussed a lot before being decided on, and the
reasons for chosing the current scheme were a bit convoluted. See
these threads for the long discussions:

(you'll need to read through a fair few posts to see how it evolved)


Tom in particular was in favour of the "common" part of the naming
scheme, as I recall.

Question is, do we want to revisit this?


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list