Re: kernel-* package names
* Ben Armstrong (synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca) [020206 16:22]:
> means linux. Why make all sorts of work (not to mention confusion
> among existing users of kernel-* packages) for such a change? Listen,
> I'm a hurd advocate, but I think leaving things the way they are is far
> less confusing than changing them. Our package namespace has always
> been managed on a first-come, first-served basis, hasn't it? Why
> should this case be any different?
If you would look a little closer into the subject, you would
notice, that there is a whole lot of problems for ports coming
from historic lazyness. THe hurd people have worked for 4 years
under these condition, and have tried to improve things to a more
consistent and generally correct state of
package/architecture/platform nameing. THe pain is only growing.
With more ports, the situation is not getting better.
It does not improve things to ignore the mistakes. Lets face it:
to be fit for future, one has to adapt to a more fitting scheme.
Reply to: