[Fedora-packaging] Packaging guidelines for Emacsen add-on packages
Tom "spot" Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Tue May 22 12:47:36 UTC 2007
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 but I should have made that comment a year ago I guess. ;-)
> > There are alternative prefix's (elisp or emacsen) that could be (have
> > been) used but perhaps it is too late now? IMHO it would be better to
> > avoid hyphened prefixes in package naming afap possible in the future.
> 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.
> 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?
I'm not convinced that emacs-common-foo is broken as a naming scheme. It
seems more intuitive than emacsen to me.
Then again, I'm not an emacs user.
More information about the Fedora-packaging