On Sat, 2008-10-18 at 00:51 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 18:31 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 03:54:25PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> FWIW, I really don't care, and am fine with uberpackager, ultrapacakger, > > > >> and superpackager. > > > > > > > > Super is probably sane enough but English has a long and distinguished > > > > history of stealing other peoples words and using them wrongly so uber- in > > > > English [ab]use is not atypical ;) > > > > > > > > > > or adding them together... super-ultra-ginormous packager. > > > > > > super was used a lot so it was no longer super. I think that is when > > > Ultra was the new super.. Uber was the 80's new Super since it 'should > > > have' umlauts like any 'proper' Germanic word. I mean how else can you > > > have a rock band name without umlauts. I think gi-normous is the > > > current generations super... > > > > How about a more neutral term? > > > > experiencedpackager > > trustedpackager > > > > Here's some that imply scope rather than "l33tness"? (no, lets not use > > l33tpackager as fun as it sounds). Since those packagers can touch > > (almost) all packages how about: > > > > globalpackager > > universepackager > > everypackager > > "Allpackager," kind of like "allspice." masterpackager? (i.e. you've mastered packaging...) - NJ -- Nigel Jones <dev@xxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
