Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
This one time, at band camp, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>The fact of the too generic package name was mentioned before within
>other arguments against your "linux" package. IIRC you prefered not to
>answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers.
'linux' is a perfect name for the package. The tarballs contain that very
name.
>> 2) I use the upstream name. If you don't like it, bitch upstream.
>
>Sorry, how much did you drink to find an answer like this one? If Linus
>changes the package name (which is unlikely to happen ;)), I am sure you
>would rename your ITP to follow him.
Are you implying that you make up names for the software that you package,
rather than use the name given to it by upstream? I believe you don't.
Given that there's a possibility that Debian will include non-linux kernels
in the future. In that case, calling the linux kernel package
'kernel-image' doesn't give a lot of room for the other kernels to live in.
Calling the package 'linux' makes it pretty clear which software it is
packaging.
--
jaq@debian.org http://people.debian.org/~jaq
Reply to: