Jonathan Underwood wrote:
I have placed a draft Guidelines document on the wiki for your
consideration. This document covers the packaging of Emacs and XEmacs
add-on packages, and provides two template spec files with the
intention of lowering the inertial barrier to developing packages for
(X)Emacs. The doc can be found here:
Thanks for doing this. I agree it would be very good to have guidelines
for packaging elisp packages.
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.