Re: Package naming

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 07.06.2020 00:56, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> 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?

I generally lean toward naming the packages 'foo', not 'foo-mode'. But 
there are exceptions.

E.g. if the mode is called <language>-mode, looks like almost everybody 
in MELPA up to now has chosen to name the package the same, apparently 
in order not to confuse the name of the package with the language? There 
are plenty of exceptions for this in core Emacs, though (python.el, 
pascal.el, prolog.el, etc). So you really can go either way.

All packages with minor modes, on the other hand, can safely go with the 
<foo> name, because it's probably sufficiently unique.

I'd call the org-mode package 'org', by the way.