On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:14:31PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 05-Nov-03, 19:14 (CST), Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@compsoc.dur.ac.uk> wrote: > > I'm in two minds whether or not to ask this, but I've been wondering > > about the naming scheme for linux packages - kernel-*. Why not > > linux-kernel-* or linux-* ? If alternative kernels in debian become > > more popular, is there a potential for confusion in the future? > > Surely these won't all show up in the same Packages file...if you're > running GNU/KFreeBSD, it will be a FreeBSD kernel, right? Why would the > Linux and Hurd kernels even be in the list? *-kernel-image-* is a binary image, and should, of course, have an appropriate architecture (or tagging, if we ever move to that). However, *-kernel-source-*, *-kernel-headers-*, and *-kernel-doc-* (off the top of my head) are all Arch: all, or at least potentially so, since they're non-binary data that could (arguably) be useful across the board (even on other kernels, since cross-compiling a kernel is often a supported concept, even if userland is far nastier as a rule). Certainly 'netbsd-kernel-source-*' will be Arch: all, even if the package one uses to build them (the equivalent of kernel-package, also a candidate for renaming if it comes to pass) is arch-specific. -- Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' : `. `' `-
Attachment:
pgpAL81ey9cUO.pgp
Description: PGP signature