From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F84198005 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:45:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0989BE0B80; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:45:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BC75E0B70 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:45:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431EF33DC57 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:45:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.772 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.142, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.628, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 930kO61Hwrsf for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:44:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E344133DC4A for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:44:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UDHSn-0001wf-7A for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:45:09 +0100 Received: from ppp118-209-70-251.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net ([118.209.70.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:45:09 +0100 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-70-251.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 17:45:09 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] New category for LeechCraft Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:44:25 +1100 Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-70-251.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3 In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: b22fe8a7-1db6-4da7-a641-ed6abc3bdeaf X-Archives-Hash: e00a0a074cdabf667ece7ccc3fe674e5 Hi, On 6/03/2013 18:07, Maxim Koltsov wrote: > Hi, > Currently there are 61 leechcraft packages in tree scattered across > several categories. We propose to move them to one new category to make > maintaining easy as well as rsync --exclude'ing. > So, two questions: > 1) Do you agree with adding new category? +1 > 2) How should we call it: app-leechcraft, leechcraft-base or anything else? app-leechcraft sounds fine. I agree with what was mentioned in another post that leechcraft-base implies some other leechcraft category with extras > > Thanks, > Maxim. Best regards, Michael