On 15 March 2015 at 21:54, Dirkjan Ochtman <d...@gentoo.org> wrote: > . In that vain, "gentoo-base" > could also work? >
I like this idea. I was initially toying with "gentoo-overlay" because it was more specific than "repo" but it didn't float well because the model was wrong. "gentoo-base" however kinda works in the vein of "This is the base the other overlays are applied to". But YMMV =). > Isn't "repo" fairly redundant? Everything there is a repository. > > Everything is a git repo, but not everything is an ebuild/Portage > repo... Which is another point against the use of repo in any > Portage-specific way. This also is my problem. Its fine to say "gentoo" in the repo itself, because it can assume from the consuming context that given a set of portage repositories, the one with the name "gentoo" is the "gentoo portage repository". But without that context, in a context where there are repos that are *not* portage repositories, I feel there should be some sort of qualifier to disambiguate between general project repositories ( e.g. : the source code for portage itself ) and collections of ebuilds and supporting files, which are all known as "repos" ... but they're only repos with in the context of "Portage". Outside the context of "Portage", "repo" can mean any git repository of any kind, not merely a portage-usable repository. -- Kent *KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
