On 27/05/07, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta(a)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
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.