| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:37:57PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> > * The name also suggests to me that it will control sys-* |
| 3 |
> > implementations, but the victims so far are all app-*. Obviously, |
| 4 |
> > we don't want twenty *-meta categories though. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > * The -meta prefix is already used in a bunch of ebuilds to mean |
| 7 |
> > something different. The packages in sys-meta won't be |
| 8 |
> > "metapackages" in the same sense. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I don't really care how it's named. I've chosen "sys-" because in my |
| 11 |
> PoC it happens to control tools that are part of the base system. |
| 12 |
> I suppose we could also want it for less important stuff like notify- |
| 13 |
> send (though I guess I'll lastrite that eselect anyway). I think we |
| 14 |
> should just use one category for all of them, and I'm open to a better |
| 15 |
> name. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Not seeing an issue with a new category myself, I'd rather these |
| 18 |
be split to avoid confusion and it be clear for users what it is. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Not sure for a better name though, alternatives/tar? Haven't really |
| 21 |
thought about it, but technically no need for a prefix- like virtual. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
ionen |
Archives