| 1 |
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:03:53 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:58:30 |
| 5 |
> +0200 as excerpted: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Kent Fredric schrieb: |
| 8 |
> >> On 23 July 2012 08:48, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 9 |
> >> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> >>> I do see some advantage of the current way of putting the |
| 11 |
> >>> firmware in the category of what it is for... |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> If you wanted, you could do something like x11-drivers/ do , and |
| 14 |
> >> have a standard of adding a little subcategorization: |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Could you be more specific? What does x11-drivers/ do that applies |
| 17 |
> > here? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> x11-drivers/xf86-video-ati |
| 20 |
> x11-drivers/xf86-video-intel |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> x11-drivers/xf86-input-evdev |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But you are aware that this is *upstream* naming? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Similarly, ati-drivers (which is not upstream naming :P) |
| 27 |
and nvidia-drivers don't follow the suite. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Michał Górny |
Archives