| 1 |
On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 19:00 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> sys-storage: or move stuff to sys-fs? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
If we go how sys-fs looks now, mdadm should go to sys-fs as well, as |
| 6 |
raidtools, lvm, evms, etc are there already. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Also, some things are a bit vague, like hdparm might rather go to |
| 9 |
sys-hardware. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
A thought might be to move all these (except hdparm, etc), as well as |
| 12 |
sys-fs to sys-storage rather. If we really go by sys-fs means to me at |
| 13 |
least, it probably should only be the fsck's, and devfs/udev that stay |
| 14 |
there if any. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> sys-network: or move stuff to net-*? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You might consider them more critical to get the system up, so more |
| 19 |
system related? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> sys-hardware: other hardware related apps (maybe splittable further?) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I at least cannot think of 2/4 more meaningful categories for these, as |
| 24 |
they are fairly diverse. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Regarding sys-bsd... When the *bsd folks get their thing working, we're |
| 27 |
> going to end up with a fair number of bsdish things in the tree. Since |
| 28 |
> sys-apps is too frickin' huge, would sys-bsd make sense? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Like spb said - you cannot really group them, as what each contain is |
| 32 |
very diverse, so I think it should be fine. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 37 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 38 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives