RE: Package naming

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> Does anyone else feel like commenting on this?

Good idea to raise the question.

I don't think we should have any naming style/convention,
other than the file-name length or package-name length
(if the latter exists).

I do, however, think we should have an apropos command
that helps you find packages.  The "keywords" or other
relevant info describing a package are the best way to
find it.  We shouldn't expect the package or file names
to do that job.

IOW, Emacs has better ways to find things that depend
on a file name to convey much, if anything.  Package
developers name their things whatever they want, for
whatever reasons they want.  If they think the package
name is good for discovery or advertising (whether or
not it describes the package), that's fine too.

We have a command `apropos-library', but it doesn't
really seem to act like an apropos command.  It seems
to match only library (file) names, and return info
that's within the chosen library, as opposed to matching
keywords etc. relevant to the library.

I don't see any `apropos-package' command, but it might
be good to have one - preferably a powerful one that
really helps discovery etc.