[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: kernel-* package names



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


Reply to: