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

Re: kernel-* package names



On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 03:32:02AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 04:56:56PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > 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. :-)

Just call it "Linux". Linux is a kernel, everybody knows, you don't
have to mention it everytime. (The people who think linux is more will
probably never get, you don't have to mention it for them.)

> > 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

First it's "the Hurd", not "HURD" or anything else. Second the Hurd
isn't a kernel, so that isn't appropriate for the Hurd. I don't think
the Hurd has a need for a kernel-source package.

> apt-get install linux-source <== Gives latest Linux source
> apt-get install linux-source-2.4.17 <== Gives Linux 2.4.17 source

That's fine.
 
> > 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.

I don't see what's inconsistent about putting it the place you run it
from. It works for all packages. IMHO the linux build system is just
broken. I forgot it when I wrote that part of my mail.

> /usr is under the control of the packaging system, and the
> packaging system's layout defines /usr/src as the place for
> kernel sources.

I don't see what's special about a kernel. I would just threat it as a
normal thing. But people tend to threat Linux differently for some
reason (IMHO it's just broken).

> 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.

IMHO that doesn't make sense.

> 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. :-)

This is the debian-devel list. I don't think we need to discuss
this. Dpkg better than RPM. :)

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: pgpKOaFvFClf5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: