On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

On 05/25/2011 05:20 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote:

...

Hi there,

There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already.

Best, Bernardo

When the rumours are over and linux is going to release his first rc1, then it would make sense to rename kernel26 to linux3.0. Except that the lts version will be still kernel26-lts, so maybe kernel3.0 would be better. I'm sure Tobias will come up with a nice solution :)

-- Jelle van der Waa

Heh, yes, in the end Tobias will give us a great solution. I imagine he has long had plans for how to handle this!

Am Wed, 25 May 2011 17:38:33 +0200 schrieb Heiko Baums :

I guess the best name is kernel30.

Forgot to mention that the kernel package is called kernel... in every distro I know. Heiko

On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums wrote:

Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself actually is only the kernel.

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 A derivative distribution or third-party repository which does not use the Linux kernel can then still provide a 'kernel' package. -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM, cantabile wrote:

On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:

...

On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums wrote:

...

Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself actually is only the kernel.

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

A derivative distribution or third-party repository which does not use the Linux kernel can then still provide a 'kernel' package.

hurr durr

Package names (ours at least) usually go by the project's name, as far as I can see.

+1 for "linux"

-- cantabile - proudly contributing to the bikeshedding :p

"Jayne is a girl's name." -- River

I agree with naming it "linux" if there are other kernels running around in the repo... what about naming the actual package "linux" and aliasing "kernel" there as the default kernel? --Jeff

On 26 May 2011 03:28, C Anthony Risinger wrote:

i know this topic is pretty much the definition of "bikeshed" ... but i agree with the "linux" package ... i don't recall ever writing `pacman -S sound` or `pacman -S make-my-monitors-have-a-gui-thingy` :-D

You are correct, bikeshed it is, as long as we talk about the package name. But, that is not the kind of correlation I was refering to. All I meant was being "straightforward". If you want gnome, you type "pacman -S gnome", not "pacman -S gtk-desktop-environment". So, if you want the kernel for your system, since there can be different kernels but not different gnomes or different linux's, you type..whatever :P -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10

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. -- Mauro Santos

2011/5/25 Ray Rashif

On 26 May 2011 03:15, Mauro Santos 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.)

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Yaro Kasear wrote:

On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:20:46 Bernardo Barros wrote:

...

Hi there,

There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already.

Best, Bernardo

What rumors are these? A quick Google search shows nothing of the sort aside from idle speculation from years ago.

Check lkml.org. Aside from that (and I realise that this is contrary to the spirit of bikshedding): I agree with Thomas (if eventually the kernel package changes names, and regardless of what it changes to, the new name should not contain a version number). -t

Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara:

This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning

Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for "Linux 3.0" are - "the numbers are getting too big" (2.6.40) - the 2.6 prefix has no meaning, and 3.0 for a release and 3.0.1 for a bugfix release is shorter than 2.6.40 anf 2.6.40.1 - some products are "linux 2.6 ready" when they support linux 2.6.9. - Linux is now 30 years old (more or less), so "3.0" sounds nice. The original reason though was the first one: Linus thought that the number 40 is just too big. Except the name and the usual changes, there is absolutely nothing new about this release.

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:

Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara:

...

This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning

Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for "Linux 3.0" are - "the numbers are getting too big" (2.6.40) - the 2.6 prefix has no meaning, and 3.0 for a release and 3.0.1 for a bugfix release is shorter than 2.6.40 anf 2.6.40.1

Of course, the 3. would still have no meaning.... :P Sander

Am 25.05.2011 18:21, schrieb Yaro Kasear:

On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:14:55 Sander Jansen wrote:

...

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:

...

Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara:

...

This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning

Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for "Linux 3.0" are - "the numbers are getting too big" (2.6.40) - the 2.6 prefix has no meaning, and 3.0 for a release and 3.0.1 for a bugfix release is shorter than 2.6.40 anf 2.6.40.1

Of course, the 3. would still have no meaning.... :P

Sander

I heard from several reliable sources it'll be 2.8, not 3.0.

I doubt that. After Linus discoverted that "2.8.0" is longer than "3.0", and thus the -stable releases could use the third digit instead of the fourth, he was pretty fond of the "3.0" idea.

If the 3 will stand the the third decade (as the idea is to make a system based on time not features), in 10 years we would have to rename it again to 'kernel4'. :-)

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote:

If the 3 will stand the the third decade (as the idea is to make a system based on time not features), in 10 years we would have to rename it again to 'kernel4'.

:-)

But why the 26 or 30 is needed at the end of the package name? -- Cédric Girard

On 05/26/2011 07:28 AM, XeCycle wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! I hope you're joking there. ;) http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/kfreebsd-image-8-amd64

-- cantabile "Jayne is a girl's name." -- River

Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle:

Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels!

You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible.

On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote:

Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle:

...

Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels!

You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible.

I'm sure it's possible. I'd like to "it's bloody pointless" as my reason. We're Arch, not Debian. Notice how Arch officially only supports x86 and x86_64. Are people going to start wasting our time with requests to support PPC, SPARC, ARM, SH*, what have you, now?

Thomas Bächler wrote:

Am 26.05.2011 14:48, schrieb Yaro Kasear:

...

On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote:

...

Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle:

...

Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels!

You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible.

I'm sure it's possible.

Ehm ... no. The suggestion was that someone would provide alternative kernels to Linux within the same set of binary packages.

You can't just "install hurd" or "install a BSD kernel" without rebuilding all your binaries for that particular kernel (in many cases, also the APIs change so you have to adjust your source code). Furthermore, this discussion is pointless.

Either way, the distribution name is Arch _Linux_, which means the kernel is linux. So either "linux" or "kernel" are valid names, being linux implicit in "kernel".

On 26 May 2011 19:02, Filip Filipov wrote:

about proposal to  the  "linux" name change. I don't label my car by my engine name, or label my engine by my car name , do you?

Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org are named "linux-{version}". :)

On Thursday 26 of May 2011 21:19:36 Filip Filipov wrote:

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras wrote:

...

Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org are named "linux-{version}". :)

yes. My idea was that if you look at it, at an higher abstraction level you have: 1) if you search for 'linux' you don't go to kernel.org 2) if you search for 'kernel' you go to kernel.org and get an linux-... named package.

so at the end there is no correct or wrong name for a choice. The answer to my "question"(do you?) is here yes.

pacman -Ss linux has more noise than pacman -Ss kernel. Had the same "problem" on debian, but this might have been my defect as I was comming from Arch :) Distribution is named Arch*Linux*, so "kernel" sounds more to the point, but upstream has another opinion. Just my 2c Regards,

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote:

100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless, imagine google search for broken wifi: gg linux broadcom wifi problem or gg kernel broadcom wifi problem cheers! m. The `proper' google search terms are: WiFi Problem under GNU/Linux with a Broadcom [card model etc]. -- Cheers, -- Kwpolska (http://kwpolska.co.cc) O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org # vim:set textwidth=70:

On 05/30/2011 07:39 AM, 俞颐超 wrote:

The next kernel version will be 3.0!!!!

Any decision now?

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Kwpolska wrote:

...

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote:

...

100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless, imagine google search for broken wifi: gg linux broadcom wifi problem or gg kernel broadcom wifi problem cheers! m. The `proper' google search terms are: WiFi Problem under GNU/Linux with a Broadcom [card model etc]. -- Cheers, -- Kwpolska (http://kwpolska.co.cc) O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org # vim:set textwidth=70:

I'm fairly sure the archlinux dev's are awesome enough to make up a name.

btw: 08:44 jelly1 | !when 08:44 phrik | When it's ready. -- Jelle van der Waa

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:28 AM, XeCycle wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote:

...

Hi there,

There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already.

I'd like to suggest a more complex name: "linux-kernel". Related packages can be called "linux-api-headers", "linux-docs".

Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels!

...

Best, Bernardo

Actually Debian already provides the Linux, FreeBSD and Hurd kernels. Best regards, Víctor