On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:07:15AM -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 12:21:55PM +0100, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > > > And now we have a BSD port too. Should these kernel patches be Hurd/BSD > > > compatible as well or should they be renamed? > > > > I think it's a very good idea. > > This names is misleading. > > You should file a wishlist bug-report to any of the kernel-* packages. > > Gahh. Let's not and say we did. For h(isto|yste)rical reasons 'kernel-' > means linux. That's no argument. That we give those names in the past doesn't make it 1) the Right way 2) unchangeable for the future. > Why make all sorts of work (not to mention confusion > among existing users of kernel-* packages) for such a change? Because we will have a lot of different kernels in Debian. We have 2 kernels in Debian at the moment (gnumach and Linux, correct me if there are more). But this is going to increase, in the near future I think at least the BSD kernels and OSKit-Mach will be packaged. > Listen, I'm a hurd advocate, but I think leaving things the way they > are is far less confusing than changing them. I think these names are confusing, else you will end up with: kernel-1.2 (Gnumach) kernel-1.2.90 (OSKit-Mach) kernel-rc2 (Hazelnut) kernel-1.5.2 (NetBSD) It also doesn't make sense that apt-get install kernel-source-2.4.17 will download the Linux source in the Hurd (this is also part of another problem however). By the way I also don't see why the linux source should be a special package, AFAIK we have apt-get source for source packages. > Our package namespace has always > been managed on a first-come, first-served basis, hasn't it? Why > should this case be any different? So nobody complains if I package OSKit-Mach as kernel-1.2.90? Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpifPiNnwhgl.pgp
Description: PGP signature