| 1 |
On 15 March 2015 at 21:54, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> . In that vain, "gentoo-base" |
| 4 |
> could also work? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I like this idea. I was initially toying with "gentoo-overlay" because it |
| 9 |
was more specific than "repo" but it didn't float well because the model |
| 10 |
was wrong. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
"gentoo-base" however kinda works in the vein of "This is the base the |
| 13 |
other overlays are applied to". |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But YMMV =). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Isn't "repo" fairly redundant? Everything there is a repository. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Everything is a git repo, but not everything is an ebuild/Portage |
| 20 |
> repo... Which is another point against the use of repo in any |
| 21 |
> Portage-specific way. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This also is my problem. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Its fine to say "gentoo" in the repo itself, because it can assume from the |
| 26 |
consuming context that given a set of portage repositories, the one with |
| 27 |
the name "gentoo" is the "gentoo portage repository". |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
But without that context, in a context where there are repos that are *not* |
| 30 |
portage repositories, I feel there should be some sort of qualifier to |
| 31 |
disambiguate between general project repositories ( e.g. : the source code |
| 32 |
for portage itself ) and collections of ebuilds and supporting files, |
| 33 |
which are all known as "repos" ... but they're only repos with in the |
| 34 |
context of "Portage". |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Outside the context of "Portage", "repo" can mean any git repository of any |
| 37 |
kind, not merely a portage-usable repository. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Kent |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives