Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > 0. What names for the tree/repository. > > "gentoo"
IMO this is the only really accurate name. > (it's also the repo_name) There you go. It already has the name gentoo. :) > "portage" doesn't make sense, everything else is too long or > potentially confusing... Yes indeed. Rich Freeman wrote: > > 0. What names for the tree/repository. > > Suggestions: > gentoo-repo > gentoo-repository > gentoo-main > gentoo-repo-main > gentoo-repository-main These are all terribly long and fairly redundant. > > 1. We have some namespaces in Git: proj, dev, priv, data, sites, exp; should > > the tree be in one of those namespaces, a new namespace, or be without > > a namespace? git://anongit.gentoo.org/NEW-NAME.git. > > I'd suggest creating a repository(-ies) namespace (or maybe call it > repo(s)), since conceivably we might have more than one at some point, > overlays might end up in there at some point, etc. This is a good point. repos/gentoo.git or maybe ebuilds/gentoo.git Kent Fredric wrote: > Similarly in the "solve confusion as to purpose" for newbies: Please be careful to avoid creating "simple" names for things which are actually more complicated than a "simple" name can express accurately. That only creates even more confusion. Names need to be accurate and short. It's very difficult to find the right ones and it is an important matter. > gentoo-packages No way, packages in Gentoo are .tbz2 files, not .ebuild files. Other distributions already confuse the naming of their packages with the files used to create the packages. Gentoo does not need to be that stupid. > gentoo-ebuilds An ebuilds namespace may not be such a bad idea, especially if later on there will be more ebuild repos next to the gentoo one. Manuel Rüger wrote: > iirc most deb and rpm based distributions use "main" for their central > repository, so +1 for gentoo-main. Gentoo is significantly different from simple binary distributions - let's not create unneccessary problems by copying their sillyness. Thanks //Peter
