On 09/10/2013 10:06 AM, 80 wrote:
as an emacs user, splitting emacs-common has little value to me, and
without a package requiring most of the splitted packages, it might
even turn into an annoyance (much like texlive).
Yeah, 4872 packages reported by repoquery texlive*. That's over 12% of
Hi,
as an emacs user, splitting emacs-common has little value to me, and
without a package requiring most of the splitted packages, it might even
turn into an annoyance (much like texlive).
My 2cts
Best regards.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
On 09/10/2013 01:54 PM, Petr Hracek wrote:
Hi folks,
I would like to separate emacs-common into more packages (in rawhide
currently).
emacs-common contains all lisp files, info and man pages
Man pages and infos should be part of the package they document. They do
not belong into "*-common".
On 09/10/2013 02:15 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:54:47 +0200, Petr Hracek wrote:
Hi folks,
I would like to separate emacs-common into more packages (in rawhide
currently).
emacs-common contains all lisp files, info and man pages
Do you think that it is a good idea to sepa
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:54:47 +0200, Petr Hracek wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I would like to separate emacs-common into more packages (in rawhide
> currently).
> emacs-common contains all lisp files, info and man pages
> Do you think that it is a good idea to separate them into groups like
>
> emacs-
On 09/10/2013 01:54 PM, Petr Hracek wrote:
Hi folks,
I would like to separate emacs-common into more packages (in rawhide
currently).
emacs-common contains all lisp files, info and man pages
Do you think that it is a good idea to separate them into groups like
emacs-org (directory /usr/share/em
