Hello, On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 06:39:00AM +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > > > Also, about source package naming. What about emacs-foo? elpa-foo > > > reveals implementation detail, and just foo introduce > > > inconsistences/collisions. Let's settle this before upload. > > > > Our current convention is to use the upstream package name for the > > source package name, unless the word is very common and the Emacs > > package is very minor, in which case we use the emacs- prefix. > > > > Are you suggesting we always use the emacs- prefix? I don't see why we > > would need to do that. goto-chg is fine in this case. > > Because what is minor package or what is very common is subjective? > For example, I would consider 'powerline' neither minor, neither very > common, but, unfortunately, vim team considered same and plain > 'powerline' source package name is already occupied. I think it's okay if "first come, first served" applies to things like source package names. The Debian-wide convention is that source package names are upstream package names, so it would be strange if we decided to prefix emacs-* to all our source packages when no other teams are doing this. Btw, some packages use the *-el convention instead of emacs-*. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature