| 1 |
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 20:14 -0400, Daniel Ostrow wrote: |
| 2 |
> One thing I do ask...Lets all start now getting used to calling the |
| 3 |
> "portage tree" something different. I'm all for terms like "the tree" or |
| 4 |
> "the ebuild tree" or "the package tree" but at this point, given the |
| 5 |
> prompting subject matter, the idea of it being a tree which belongs to |
| 6 |
> portage seems outdated. This may seem like a small thing (like the teams |
| 7 |
> vs. herds argument that has been brought up countless times before) but |
| 8 |
> it is the silly little things like this that really do lower the mental |
| 9 |
> bar for new and exciting things to happen. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I suggest we start calling it "Larry's tree" and be done with it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Also, I am definitely for having an actual written standard for what |
| 14 |
defines an ebuild. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 18 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 19 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 20 |
Games - Developer |
| 21 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives