Re: Bug#220401: ITP: linux-experimental -- Linux 2.4 kernel [EXPERIMENTAL PACKAGE]
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:23:35PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:26:26AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > > * Package name : linux-experimental
> > I really don't care either way, but would you consider using
> > kernel-linux-whatever instead?
> I considered it, but it's redundant and unnecessary. I'll stick with the
> name choosed by upstream.
Did you consider ease of finding alternative packages through the normal
UI like dselect and aptitude? I, for one, appreciate similar things to
exist next to each other.
> > Just for consistency's sake. As
> > someone else said, eventually there will be a kernel-freebsd or
> > kernel-netbsd, and having an uniform scheme to call these things would
> > be nice.
> There's no consistency in that, since FreeBSD and NetBSD are not kernels.
Well all "port" part of user space progrms are not kernel. But I thought
they have their own kernel and have some linux binary compatibility
mode. (I do not know how binary compatibility works here.)
Anyway, to me, CDBS package is a very good direction. I am looking
forward to it.
PS: Relax. All comments you got on this thread seems very friendly.