2011/5/25 Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org>
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
Id say that if we wan't to go the way, where we take other kernels into account too (hurd) we should name linux-kernel and gurd would be hurd-kernel. But I see it extreamly unlikely for hurd or anyother kernel to ever become offical part of arch, atleast not in near future. At the moment I see 'kernel' as best option. Linux term is used when speaking about anything connected to GNU/Linux, distros are linux and so on, its way too broad term. Kernel means the core part of the operating system, so it fits bettter. -- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)