5

The libraries tag seems to be used with two different meanings: for Emacs Lisp libraries, or for DLLs needed to use certain Emacs features under Windows.

Would it be worth splitting the tag into two? What would be good names for the new tags?

2

It seems most reasonable to me that libraries should refer only to Emacs Lisp libraries. However, we also have a package tag, and it seems to me that these could be synonyms, although they could be used in slightly different ways (libraries for "built-in" code, package for third-party code).

We have an osx tag as well as a microsoft-windows tag for the operating systems. I'd suggest that we move all references to DLLs to that tag.

  • I agree with merging libraries (in the emacs lisp sense) into package. We also have another problem that package is used both for packages and for package.el, but that's another matter. – Malabarba Feb 12 '15 at 15:10
  • @Malabarba: on the latter point, would creating a specific package.el tag be worthwhile, or would that just confuse things? – Dan Feb 12 '15 at 15:12
  • I don't think it would confuse things. Maybe it's a good thing, or maybe it will see very little use and we'll have to add it manually. People asking about the package menu, for instance, would be more likely to tag package than package.el. Maybe the best way would be to get rid of package entirely, and divide its uses between package.el and something like external-packages, but that would take a lot of work – Malabarba Feb 14 '15 at 1:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .