Re: [Fedora-packaging] Packaging guidelines for Emacsen add-on packages

["Jonathan Underwood" <jonathan underwood gmail com>]

On 17/05/07, Jens Petersen <petersen redhat com> wrote:
> 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.

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:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-May/msg00262.html
(you'll need to read through a fair few posts to see how it evolved)

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-May/msg00740.html

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?

J.