seth vidal wrote: > 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." >> > > OdinPackager? > WednesdayPackager? > Okay but then I insist on renaming the intro level Packager group to PugsleyPackager. :-) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
