Dmitri Paduchikh <dpaduch...@gmail.com> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> The (distro ...) name for modules of the distro wasn’t meant to last. >> Initially, I thought we could find a name for the distro, and substitute >> that name to “distro”. Possible names: > >> • Jinn, as in “Jinn is not Nixpkgs/NixOS”; >> • Guixotic, as Guix + Exotic (suggested by RMS). > > These seem rather baroque to me. Especially the reference to nixpkgs in > such a context. The name "Unix" is pretty much widespread so the > abbreviation "GNU" can be seen as ingenious. nixpkgs is much less known > and hence this looks weird, IMHO.
Right, but the meaning doesn’t have to be explained all the time, esp. since jinn is also a noun. > I would propose Guix World as a externally visible name, and just world > or distro for internal namespace usage. Hmm. >> However, I’ve come to think that we don’t necessarily need a separate >> name for the distro, but we do need a name for the module name space. > > It would be good to have name for distro. How would you refer to it > otherwise? Guix? >> The obvious solution would be (gnu ...). There’d be modules like >> (gnu packages openssl), which does not mean that OpenSSL is a GNU >> package, but I think that should be clear in this context. Anyway, >> that’s the option that I like the most currently. > > It may be clear, but your example demonstrates internal inconsistency of > such naming. Is Guix intended for GNU software only? If not, then be > fair to all the others. ;) The Guile module name space is different from the actual software names, so I’m not too worried actually. Thanks for your feedback! Ludo’.
