On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 11:20 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 20/07/07, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com>
> 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"