Re: Bug#204658: ITP: develock -- additional font-lock keywords for the developers
Quoting Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net>:
> 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).
You're not far from being the only one to think of it.
Debian Emacs users are used to -el suffixed packages.
> 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.
Very rare cases.
> 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.
We don't need such bloat: the emacs version can be detected at
runtime in the emacs lisp script itself. Furthermore, a registry
mechanism handled multiple emacs flavours at install time.
> So, for this package: develock-elisp or emacs-develock
A majority of packages adopted the -el suffix, so did emacs
users. Just browse emacs package in Debian and you'll see.
--
Jérôme Marant
Reply to: