On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:14:31PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 05-Nov-03, 19:14 (CST), Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@compsoc.dur.ac.uk> 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?
*-kernel-image-* is a binary image, and should, of course, have an
appropriate architecture (or tagging, if we ever move to that). However,
*-kernel-source-*, *-kernel-headers-*, and *-kernel-doc-* (off the top
of my head) are all Arch: all, or at least potentially so, since they're
non-binary data that could (arguably) be useful across the board (even on
other kernels, since cross-compiling a kernel is often a supported concept,
even if userland is far nastier as a rule).
Certainly 'netbsd-kernel-source-*' will be Arch: all, even if the package
one uses to build them (the equivalent of kernel-package, also a candidate
for renaming if it comes to pass) is arch-specific.
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpAL81ey9cUO.pgp
Description: PGP signature