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

Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood at gmail.com
Mon May 28 15:35:13 UTC 2007

On 27/05/07, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/05/07, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi> wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 May 2007, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> >
> > > I would propose guidelines such as these:
> > > 1) Packages which include add on modes for (X)Emacs should package the
> > > byte compiled lisp files for these modes in a sub-package named
> > > foo-emacs and/or foo-xemacs.
> >
> > I don't agree with that naming - it doesn't follow the "if it's bar for foo,
> > call it foo-bar" naming strategy applied to just about everything else.
> > emacs-foo and xemacs-foo would be better.  Ditto emacs-foo-el, xemacs-foo-el.
> >
> > Otherwise, looks good to me.
> Yes - I had that thought initially too. But it becomes a question of
> is the mode an add on for Emacs or an add-on for gnuplot (in the
> example given). In the end, I couldn't decide either way. Thing is,
> current precedent is foo-emacs, so if we're more infavour of
> emacs-foo, which is much more consistent, I agree, then a fair few
> packages will need to be renamed.
> OTOH, whatever guideline we introduce here will mean some packaging
> work will need to be done on existing packages. So perhaps we should
> just get it right once and for all.
> I'll wait a while, and if there are no more comments I'll add these
> guidelines along with your namingporeference to the wiki page.

I have now updated the Guidelines to reflect this issue. Actually, the
approach I have taken is to add an executive summary at the top of the
page which encompasses this. See what you think.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list