From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Pykhalov Subject: Re: [RFC] A simple draft for channels Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:53:57 +0300 Message-ID: <87inbosb7e.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87bmhq6ytg.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> <87mv19ozgl.fsf@member.fsf.org> <874lnb2vt8.fsf@gnu.org> <86tvvbuooz.fsf@gmail.com> <87vafrxgn1.fsf@elephly.net> <86o9lgedpb.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59268) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ef98Z-0005le-TU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:54:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ef98W-0005Fz-T9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:54:07 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]:45966) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ef98W-0005FU-Kw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:54:04 -0500 Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id x196so1889618lfd.12 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:54:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <86o9lgedpb.fsf@gmail.com> (myglc2@gmail.com's message of "Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:23:44 -0500") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: myglc2@gmail.com Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ricardo Wurmus --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain myglc2@gmail.com writes: [...] > I don't think you should call them "channels." Why? Only advanced Nix or > Conda users will know what it means. For anyone familiar with Chrome, > Red Hat, or TV channels, the "channels" label works against you: they > have to learn and remember that a Guix channel works differently. These > labels might work better: "Guix Sources" (ala Debian sources list[1]), > "third party sources" or "third party repos". > > WDYT? > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/SourcesList "Sources" is a very bad name. Especially for search engines. And it also bad for the reference. You will need to specify what is the 'Guix source' all the time you mention it. I think about '~/src/guix' Git repository as I see this. I think the best for understand phrase is a "third party package repository" or "package repositories" for short. Is it too general or could we stick with it? I also like Ricardo's mention 'Guix package collection' on the IRC. Maybe 'Guix collections' will be a good candidate? It's unique unlike 'package repositories', which is good for search. Oleg. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEc+OyAXw1EaDPCmAPckbhHGm3lWkFAlpreUUACgkQckbhHGm3 lWnUAw/+MJR9SJ7xc3wAwvzlJSHLYcNQCbNLVs1Hml0l6EJGl7XFNxa1qSuA/1Zc 2Ot4wOfTfff19RLFY1DZm9KCGGFvyug7hGMZb9Rmqkd1D+GMtJ4lGd6nhOQ8ZHVa f32/K/OqmeeeClavqdvaSVh414i1zSYrwiO/zxBGVhxx8cf2B/srhMwET7FsWHjH 3qMJGVASAm95WuNs4oEzKIZOpaqzX8dUCcOcvsmAAQ5z6pD1LcvHA76TzGjzcX8H k3ktxKXVudksIfSFfrgMeEzfC7GvUt9KIkdWOleHFMePiLdCCdLNy4mNwFV2nXjz ij8MdFUbLgvnchZ9SzcoPnJ1yoUcI0fY0MldSeSVwX2aZLIQ0ZdM+grvz2XPiWJ9 35JvEJ0ykCEvDQvNJNhmkYJAljqOiV/TjRPX4YH+BXmKrdtdYrVZKo3qFkxIWJ6F VnCrQmb8Qt80D0NNKCRg8UtFrZDLK9JIYBKMWH9yZZo78Iq3seZ0VZEM+PUWIuUy 5onLO/NBBu8bGvpfrKMS6lSw8FQapR0/y1PHx5idtDr2kPsRW5ENAL5P4A2Vo7Q7 zmO+4CvfQEvw2FAmavAzplSdZ7Llct3TEWAJOx1cldj08bLbLoJqkt7KWNqZ6s4q NrSJd2atstPUzyfAl7CDLTyFj92FUfXWfhnHoQZ+afb6aHUjE2E= =bQ1V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--