Re: kernel package names (was Re: Package libc6-dev depends on linux-kernel-headers)
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:14:31PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 05-Nov-03, 19:14 (CST), Jonathan Dowland <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I'm in two minds whether or not to ask this, but I've been wondering
> > about the naming scheme for linux packages - kernel-*. Why not
> > linux-kernel-* or linux-* ? If alternative kernels in debian become
> > more popular, is there a potential for confusion in the future?
> Surely these won't all show up in the same Packages file...if you're
> running GNU/KFreeBSD, it will be a FreeBSD kernel, right? Why would the
> Linux and Hurd kernels even be in the list?
I think, when one considers this "ideal" state of Debian where a Debian
userland is portable to any architecture and Unix-like kernel in
existence, you really just have to consider every combination of
arch/kernel to actually be as a different architecture. Perhaps the
best approach is to add a kernel tag to the Debian architecture, similar
to GNU config.guess string.
i386-linux is thus different from i386-freebsd, both different from
mips-*. Packages for that architecture/kernel combination would be
maintained in the pool alongside everything else by the buildds. Would
probably require significant reworking of lots of things. :(
Another (rather sillier idea) involved a virtual package *-kernel to
indicate to packages which userland the system was being run on, but I
haven't any idea where I was really going with that.
Ryan Underwood, <email@example.com>