David Comay wrote:
>> Emacs will be delivered in four packages:
>>
>> SUNWemacs
>> Core distribution, containing all files necessary to
>> run emacs, but not including the actual emacs binaries.
>>
>> SUNWemacs-el
>> Uncompiled LISP source files (.el), of interest to emacs
>> programmers only. The compiled versions of these files
>> (.elc) are included in the core SUNWemacs package.
>>
>> SUNWemacs-x
>> Emacs binaries built with X11 support using the
>> Athena (Xaw) toolkit. This package installs emacs
>> as /usr/bin/emacs-x.
>>
>> SUNWemacs-nox
>> Emacs binaries built as a pure tty based program, without
>> any linkage to the system X11 libraries. This package
>> installs emacs as /usr/bin/emacs-nox.
>
> I'm OK with these names although I should point out that most if not
> all of the *recent* additions of "official" GNU software have chosen
> names of the form SUNWgnu-<whatever>. I think it would be worthwhile
> to be consistent here (the same would apply obviously to
> SUNWemacs-gtk).
>
> Longer term, it's my hope that we'll do some renaming anyway or support
> some sort of aliasing of names so users don't need to even worry about
> the "SUNW" prefix or even the "SUNWgnu-" part.
>
> dsc
I am willing to rename the the packages. They would become:
SUNWgnu-emacs
SUNWgnu-emacs-x
SUNWgnu-emacs-nox
SUNWgnu-emacs-el
and maybe
SUNWgnu-emacs-gtk
I am concerned that I might be renaming them, only to have them
renamed again shortly afterwards. There doesn't seem to be a solid
consensus around how package names should work under IPS, and don't
want to be an early adopter of something that is going to change soon.
On the other hand, there are 11 packages in snv_95 with this
SUNWgnu- convention (David tells me this convention is 6-9 months
old) which makes it as close to a standard as we have.
So I will make this change, unless directed otherwise by the ARC.
Note that the actual command names (/usr/bin/emacs, etc) are not
affected by this.
- Ali
