Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
Robert Millan wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> The fact of the too generic package name was mentioned before within
>> other arguments against your "linux" package.
>
>How many software programs called "linux" are around?
When people refer to "linux", they often mean the entire OS. How about
calling it "linux-kernel"? Upstram seems happy with this, given that the
mailing list for its discussion is "linux-kernel" rather than "linux",
and it would remove any ambiguity. It would also allow for consistency
with other kernels - "netbsd" doesn't necessarily refer to the kernel,
but "netbsd-kernel" is unambigous.
>> IIRC you prefered not to
>> answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers.
>
>I don't recall seeing this question before. So unless you provide a link to
>that, you're liing.
Technically, no - even if he doesn't provide a link, it may be true. And
even if the question wasn't asked before, he may be mistaken. Accusing
people of deliberately telling falsehoods (and note the "IIRC" - for
this to be a lie, Eduard would have to have known absolutely that what
he was saying was not true) makes you look like a fanatic.
>I don't recall seeing such "ultimate argument" before. So unless you provide
>a link to that, you're liing again.
Cough.
>> And after removing bogus and irrelevant ones from that list, it became
>> empty.
>
>Indeed.
You may want to actually read that. He's referring to the advantages
list.
>> Why cannot you invent something new to convince us?
>
>As I said before I'm unwilling to understand your sarcasm.
But at the time you were referring to my sarcasm, which confuses me a
bit.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: