On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 04:56:56PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > 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. > > > > Why make all sorts of work (not to mention confusion > > among existing users of kernel-* packages) for such a change? Surely there wouldn't be that much confusion? linux-source provides kernel-source linux-headers provides kernel-headers I'm pretty sure apt-get _already_ deals with that kind of 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) This is all very true. The Linux kernel's package names will have to be changed. There's no way around it. It's just a question of when. Well, we could define 'kernel' to mean 'Linux kernel' but that's a recursive definition without a stop condition. And I don't want to deal with the Linux Linux kernel, let alone the Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux kernel. That's more Linux than you can poke a stick at. :-) > 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). How about 'kernel-source' virtual package, that by default grabs the appropriate source for your arch? I _assume_ that other non-Linux arch's kernels are downloaded, compiled and installed similarly to the way Linux's are. Then, under the hurd you'd get apt-get install kernel-source <== Gives latest HURD source apt-get install linux-source <== Gives latest Linux source apt-get install linux-source-2.4.17 <== Gives Linux 2.4.17 source > 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. Because using apt-get source doesn't put things in a consistent place, it puts them in the place you run it from. I'm quite fond of the kernel-package system for kernels and modules as it stands, but I can't see apt-get source being used with it, since some things (modules) can not be distributed in binary form, so apt-get source wouldn't work. The Intel e100 driver for example. /usr is under the control of the packaging system, and the packaging system's layout defines /usr/src as the place for kernel sources. The alternative is a source-packaging system like RPM's where SRPMs also extract themselves to a defined location. eg apt-get source extracts the downloaded source to /usr/src/ debian/package. But then, only root could apt-get source. Which is really a massive pain compared to the current system. The RPM system has some merit, mind you. I'm not sure which is better, off hand. That's a question for another time, and another place. Preferably far from me. :-) -- =========================================================== Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE 4th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) Paul.Hampson@Anu.edu.au Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. ===========================================================
Attachment:
pgp9Mfhnk5WXX.pgp
Description: PGP signature