Jérôme Marant <jmarant@free.fr> wrote:
> I'd suggest develock-el.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:04:12PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> I was about the say the same. A few end with the "-mode" suffix and a
> few other with "-elisp" but "-el" is certainly the standard.
Not being an emacs user, I never noticed the similarity between the
'-el' suffix for elisp packages and the 'el' localization. In fact, a
quick check shows that there are LC_MESSAGES in the 'el' subdirectory of
/usr/share/locale. Perhaps this name collision is not a Good Thing(TM).
I have also noticed that some packackages are using the "-e20" or "-e21"
to indicate the version of emacs that the package belongs to. There is
another convention that seems to work out well for the python packages,
which is the "python[VERSION]-" prefix.
In light of this observation, I'm in favor of the "[x]emacs[VERSION]-"
prefix or the "-elisp[VERSION]" suffix. I wouldn't suggest a
mass-rename, but I would suggest choosing one of the above as a
convention for new packages.
So, for this package: develock-elisp or emacs-develock
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
Attachment:
pgpX34ZbAe805.pgp
Description: PGP signature