On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 11:20 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 20/07/07, Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underwood@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand correctly, this would translate to:
main package: emacs-foo, containing files specific to GNU Emacs sub package: emacs-foo-common, containing files not specific to any Emacs flavour sub-package: xemacs-foo, containing files specific to XEmacs sub-packages: xemacs-foo-el and emacs-foo-el containing the lisp source for each flavour.
This is essentially was my very first original proposal, but people weren't keen on it as it uses the term emacs as a generalization for emacs flavours, and as a specific for GNU Emacs.
I should also point out that the above proposal doesn't treat GNU Emacs and XEmacs on an equal footing - the XEmacs package being a sub package and the GNU Emacs package being the main package. The current emacs-common-foo scheme does not have that bias.
This is one of the main reasons why I prefer the current scheme, because I don't have to pull people apart while fighting "my editor is better" wars. :)
~spot