| 1 |
I agree. |
| 2 |
Only things that can ONLY be used with the Gentoo Linux distribution |
| 3 |
should have gentoo- names. |
| 4 |
Things related to portage should have portage names (e-prefix seems to |
| 5 |
be the standard). |
| 6 |
Gentoo-originated tools usable in non gentoo/portage environments should |
| 7 |
just be left alone... mabey they could be named acording to some related |
| 8 |
package... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
-John |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 09:42, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 14 |
> On 03/17/04 Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 11:38, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 17 |
> > > Thus the GLEP. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > FYI: |
| 20 |
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0024.html |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> My opinion: I'm for a common prefix, but I don't like the gentoo- part. |
| 23 |
> Reason: I don't think a gentoo- prefix would benefit so much if we |
| 24 |
> already have a common config- and update- prefix, it just looks silly to |
| 25 |
> me. Even in your specification you omit the gentoo- prefix for easier |
| 26 |
> reading. It just makes the names longer, it doesn't help one bit with |
| 27 |
> tab completion and it makes stuff gentoo specific, where do we draw a |
| 28 |
> line between Gentoo specific tools and tools from packages that |
| 29 |
> originated from Gentoo (portage being the big one here), should we |
| 30 |
> rename emerge to gentoo-emerge? Maybe it makes some (IMO very limited) |
| 31 |
> sense for new users, but for experienced users it's just more typing. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Marius |
Archives