Thursday 19 July 2007, Dale Blount wrote: | On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 14:02 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: | > On 7/19/07, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote: | > > * why renaming the current repo? current and extra make | > > perfectly sense in the KISS approach to me. | > | > My biggest problem is grammar. "current" and "extra" don't | > follow each other. "less" and "more", "east" and "west", | > "monday" and "saturday" - all these words are related in some | > way. | > | > "current" and "extra" don't make any sense? If "current" is | > current, does that mean extra is not current? Is current more up | > to date than current? "extra" what? More extra than "current"? | > Does that mean it's from the future? | | [base] and [extra] make much more sense to me. Especially when | you get into the fact that we tag packages in [current] with | CURRENT and packages in [extra] are also tagged CURRENT. Man, I | was a confused dev when that first happened. true - you both of you are right. the naming was not linguistically correct in the beginnning. but it worked for years *smile* if we change the name, "base" makes more sense as do "core". "core" or -- introducing another name -- "nucleus" would be everything from the base category we have now + some other pkgs? if there is really a mature reason to rename a repository, then go for it... but be aware that this would break backwards compatibility becasue on all the cd's and installers till now (ftp install especially), we have the naming hardcoded. actually, thinking forward-projected, it would be not too bad, if the installer if trying to use any online-repositories (compared to offline install-media provided repositories) would first synch a information-file what archlinux offers for stuff atm. - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><