| 1 |
Drake Wyrm <wyrm@×××××.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> describes its intended contents, I suggest "dev-lispscheme. One |
| 6 |
> alternative, just off the top of my head, would be to use "dev-scheme" |
| 7 |
> and drop a README in the Portage tree root directory which describes |
| 8 |
> what each category is supposed to contain and points to other detailed |
| 9 |
> documentation. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Folks, you are making a meal out of this category naming!!! Haven't |
| 12 |
we got more pressing tasks at hand? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
dev-scheme and dev-lisp are good enough name spacing. Once the Scheme |
| 15 |
stuff is moved from dev-lisp to dev-scheme, all that remains in |
| 16 |
dev-lisp is approximately 100 Common Lisp-related ports and xlispstat |
| 17 |
and lush (which are not Scheme or Common Lisp, but have a S-expression |
| 18 |
syntax). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
At that point, we'll *maybe* create dev-common-lisp and leave |
| 21 |
xlispstat and lush in dev-lisp -- but I can't see justifying a |
| 22 |
category with only 2 ebuilds in it, so lush and xlispstat will have to |
| 23 |
move to dev-lang while dev-lisp would be dropped. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It is my preference as a maintainer of dev-lisp to leave xlispstat, |
| 26 |
lush and all the Common Lisp stuff in dev-lisp and move the scheme |
| 27 |
stuff to dev-scheme. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Matt |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Matthew Kennedy |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives