| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 03:42, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> My opinion: I'm for a common prefix, but I don't like the gentoo- part. |
| 3 |
> Reason: I don't think a gentoo- prefix would benefit so much if we |
| 4 |
> already have a common config- and update- prefix, it just looks silly to |
| 5 |
> me. Even in your specification you omit the gentoo- prefix for easier |
| 6 |
> reading. It just makes the names longer, it doesn't help one bit with |
| 7 |
> tab completion and it makes stuff gentoo specific, where do we draw a |
| 8 |
> line between Gentoo specific tools and tools from packages that |
| 9 |
> originated from Gentoo (portage being the big one here), should we |
| 10 |
> rename emerge to gentoo-emerge? Maybe it makes some (IMO very limited) |
| 11 |
> sense for new users, but for experienced users it's just more typing. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Another naming idea hadn't occurred to me until your and Thomas's posts. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I took options 2 and 3 and tried to get the benefits of the short names |
| 16 |
and the Gentoo specificity and clarity -- this is what I got: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Given that many of Gentoo's tools start with e* already, perhaps |
| 19 |
econfig-* and eupdate-* would be a better idea. This keeps the shorter |
| 20 |
length while still being very obviously a Gentoo tool. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The downside is that "e<tab><tab>" still gets you a huge list of bins, |
| 23 |
while "gentoo-<tab<tab>" gets you _only_ the tools. You need to type |
| 24 |
"econfig-" and "eupdate-" on different terms at the same time to get the |
| 25 |
ease of searchability the gentoo- prefix gives. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Comments? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives