On 18/07/07, Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Well I don't like "emacsen" either...
>> Anyway, I'm happy to revisit the package naming guidelines for
>> (X)Emacs add-ons, Jens seems inclined to do so. Does anyone else have
>> strong feelings either way?
My suggestion is just to go with emacs-* rather than emacs-common-*.
It is a pretty small change and already quite a number of older
elisp packages follow it.
Jens, please review the previous discussions on this so we don't have
to rehash exactly the same old arguments - in this thread I have
earlier pointed to the past discussions.
The problem arises when a package is an add-on for both GNU Emacs and
XEmacs. In that case there ARE subpackages called emacs-foo and
xemacs-foo for each flavour. But that means the main package name
can't also be emacs-foo.
> I'm not convinced that emacs-common-foo is broken as a
IMHO it is too verbose and it makes it hard to read and find emacs packages.
Why? I want to install the muse package for Emacs. So I type yum
install emacs-muse. That of course also pulls in emacs-common-muse.
What is so hard about this for a user?
> Then again, I'm not an emacs user.
I think it would be better if emacs/xemacs users had more say in setting
the naming convention.
Well, I agree, but this mailing list is the forum for that to happen.
Emacs/XEmacs users are having the same opportunities to comment on
package naming guidelines here that users generally have to comment on
package naming (i.e. not a lot).