[moved discussion to debian-emacsen. Please, keep me in cc if you want me to reply]
> > No idea why, but dh-make-elpa (seems to violate debhelper naming > > convention) > It does? My bad. debhelper claims dh_* namespace. But I would find just make-elpa more intuitive. > > Adding note about xz is on my todo list. > >=20 > > 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. -- Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff Accept-Language: eo,en,ru X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io
