On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:05:39PM +0100, Luis Oliveira wrote:
On 07/08/07, Nikodemus Siivola nikodemus@random-state.net wrote:
The only things I'm unhappy about are grabbing package names like MACH. [...] (a) Use names like OSIX, OSMACH, OSWIN -- compromise between putting them in the OSICAT "namespace" and using something terse.
Those names do sound like a good compromise. (And I think Corman already uses WIN.) What do you think Stelian? Also, OSIMACH and OSIWIN? Or is that one character too many?
I think OSWIN and OSIX(OSNIX ?) are ok(maybe nicknamed OW and OX :) ) about Mach, I don't think it should have a package on its own, especially since the only Mach system used around is Darwin/OSX which is almost identical to a FreeBSD. perhaps one day a brave coder will want to port everything on GNU/Hurd and we'll have OSHURD :D
Other stuff (aka directions to move in): while I'm OK with having OSICAT-POSIX / OSIX on Windows, in the long term the Windows side should probably not build on it.
Sure.
I agree too