Re: kernel-* package names
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:13:55PM +0100, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> "kernel is Linux" sounds to me as mail-reader is mutt, editor is vim,
> programming language is... C-- (Yes, I used a restricted version of C
> for an university exam :> ) etc.
> How many holy wars will start now? None, i hope: it's only an example :)
Unlike those examples, once you've decided which kernel to use for a given
Debian system, you can't just arbitrarily switch. I would argue
internal consistency of names is all that is important for the user.
> We should use names with their meaning, and not mislead users. On the
> other hand we should show users the real diversity of the world we
> offer: many kernels, in this case.
Users won't be misled. If I install Debian GNU/Linux and fetch a
package called kernel-whatever, it is self-evident that it is for Linux,
and not for hurd or bsd. It is internally consistent.
Renaming kernel-* to linux-* (or kernel-linux-*) is principally a
political issue, not a technical one. So at the very least, this
discussion belongs on debian-project, not here.
Ben
--
nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
Debian http://www.debian.org synrg@debian.org
[ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
[ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
Reply to: