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

Re: kernel-source == Linux or Hurd or ???



On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:03:18PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Bernhard R. Link <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> [2003.09.22.1213 +0200]:
> > So your complain reduces in my eyes to an incomplete label.
> > I personally think not having the term "linux" in it more of an
> > issue than having "-debian" in it...
> 
> This is a good point. Debian makes an effort to be kernel
> independent, so why does the kernel-source install Linux?
> 
> I think we should rename to linux-kernel-source, linux-kernel-image
> and so on...

A battle for another day (or year). All I can say is that the only person I
know of who is packaging the NetBSD kernel source (that is to say, 'me') is
using netbsd-kernel-source-<version> (-current for CVS HEAD), in much the
same vein as the current kernel-source-<version> packages.

To date, there are no kernel patches specific to Debian's NetBSD port
(and doing them is a bit of a touchy matter, given the dependance of some
utilities on precise kernel structures; I should probably update the
mini-policy to account for this, at some point).

I do look forward to the day when "not having a prefix/suffice means Linux
only for legacy support reasons", but I don't expect it to happen anytime
soon. :)
-- 
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter                                        : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
				                                       `-

Attachment: pgp7TzmTv4DdE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: