On 26 May 2011 03:15, Mauro Santos <registo.mailling@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25-05-2011 19:36, Ray Rashif wrote:
I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the commands, for .eg:
"I want a kernel for this system" == pacman -S kernel
That sounds good actually, arch is bleeding edge so naming the packages kernel and kernel-lts should be enough, the package version would take care of the rest even if the version jumps to 2.8 then 3.0 and then 2012.01 or whatever.
The name would also be backward compatible (if needed), i.e: kernel26 == a 2.6 kernel package kernel == a 3.0 kernel package -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10