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