From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30548 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Jun 2003 14:47:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 4671 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2003 14:47:04 -0000 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:45:42 +0800 From: Michael Kohl To: svyatogor@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-Id: <20030622224542.314472b2.citizen428@cargal.org> In-Reply-To: <200306221722.41392.svyatogor@gentoo.org> References: <1056288854.2350.23.camel@biproc> <20030622220740.69093532.citizen428@cargal.org> <200306221722.41392.svyatogor@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.0claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Operating-System: Gentoo Linux Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="2xJ9mt+r=._AjO'_" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] volonteers for a gentoo admin tool (portage frontend) X-Archives-Salt: dfb682ff-084e-4938-84c5-c958f6452002 X-Archives-Hash: e63d03e4b7cb8420b12ff8b4895e787f --2xJ9mt+r=._AjO'_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 17:22:41 +0000 Svyatogor wrote: > Not Emergency - please! It sounds as if it's always gonna crash and > you need to call emergensy service. It was just in regard to emerge... Other people like it, but actually I don't care that much about the name. > I've got another proposal: Gremlin? It has G - for gentoo. In the end > of the day we have "Konqui the dragon" for KDE, Demon, for BSD. Why > not Gremlin for gentoo? Don't we already have a mascot in form of Larry the Cow? Maybe we can come up with something along those lines? > Probably we should go other way round? First integrate what is already > done and then add new things. This way we'll make sure we're not just > gonna add one more tool, but really integrate existing ones. Sure, why not? I just wanted to say that I don't think the package managment part should be the fist to be tackled. > I feel that package management has to be in such tool, though not > nesesarily in first versions. Sounds like a deal. :) Michael -- www.cargal.org GnuPG-key-ID: 0x90CA09E3 Jabber-ID: citizen428 [at] cargal [dot] org Registered Linux User #278726 --2xJ9mt+r=._AjO'_ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+9cEZ3i2RopDKCeMRAr8xAJ4/m5REajqPybv03uoRGNtI9OIs/gCggyDW bK4Ev98ybUpyT3ijSYBP81w= =pgKC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2xJ9mt+r=._AjO'_--