Re: Package naming

[Daniele Nicolodi]

On 30/05/2020 16:31, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> what is the established convention for naming packages that mainly
> provide a major mode? If I have a package that mainly provides
> `foo-mode`, in the sense that all the "user facing" functionality is
> enabled activating a major mode, should the package be named "foo" or
> "foo-mode"?
> 
> I see examples of both. Notable examples are "org-mode" and "bibtex".

Hello,

beside the matter-of-fact reply of Stefan, I haven't seen anyone else
express opinion on this matter. I believe that with easy code
distribution via ELPA (and MELPA) it would be best to have some
consistency in package naming, thus an (unofficial, not strictly
enforced) naming convention would be a good thing.

Does anyone else feel like commenting on this?

Thank you.

Cheers,
Dan