| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> It is that ebuild tree that is the core to |
| 3 |
> what makes it a gentoo system. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I think this is really the heart of your argument and others who feel |
| 7 |
"gentoo" is the best name for the repository. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'm not going to argue against that here. I'm not convinced that |
| 10 |
Gentoo is just the ebuild tree, but you're not really saying that. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Is there a good reason not to call the repository "gentoo" and leave |
| 13 |
it at that? Are there other source repositories that are also key to |
| 14 |
Gentoo such that such a generic name would cause confusion? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I think the biggest argument against this is that a Gentoo install is |
| 17 |
a compilation of many Gentoo projects, of which the ebuild tree is a |
| 18 |
key and unifying one, but it also includes stuff like the install |
| 19 |
media, stage3, openrc/baselayout, maybe eudev, and usually |
| 20 |
portage/emerge. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Is there more to it than this? Is there a new argument we haven't |
| 23 |
already heard? I just want to make sure all the perspectives are out |
| 24 |
there before a call gets made. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives