On 17/05/07, Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
My only comment so far FWIW is that I don't like naming the
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.
Jens, I happen to mostly agree with you. However, the guideline I
created is taking the package naming guidelines for emacs add-ons as
gospel, as this was discussed a lot before being decided on, and the
reasons for chosing the current scheme were a bit convoluted. See
these threads for the long discussions:
(you'll need to read through a fair few posts to see how it evolved)
Tom in particular was in favour of the "common" part of the naming
scheme, as I recall.
Question is, do we want to revisit this?