[arch-dev-public] Kernel module package naming convention?

[Maxime GAUDUIN]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> A naming conflict on the AUR between jme-git (JMicron Ethernet Linux
> driver)
> and jme-svn (jMonkey Engine) was recently brought to my attention.
> Currently,
> the names of kernel module packages are identical to the internal names of
> the
> modules recognized by e.g. modprobe and lsmod.
>
> Given that libraries and modules for programming languages and other
> applications follow a naming scheme that includes the target application's
> prefix in the package name (python-foo, aspell-foo, etc.), it would be
> consistent to do the same with kernel modules, e.g. "linux-foo".
>
> I understand that there are likely a lot of packages that would be
> affected by
> the adoption of such a naming scheme, but the migration could be done
> gradually
> as packages are upgraded, with "provides" entries used to satisfy
> dependencies
> during the transitional period.
>
> Of course, a TODO list could manage this as well if you're up to it.
>
> The guidelines would also need to be updated:
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Kernel_Module_Package_Guidelines
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Regards,
> Xyne
>
>
I support a change of the module naming scheme too, having a prefix or
suffix would mean less confusion. The only packages in our repos not
following the current scheme are the vbox packages, they have a "-modules"
suffix (virtualbox-guest-modules, virtualbox-host-modules), but "linux-*"
and "linux-flavor-*" appear to be more sensible choices indeed.

If we go with that change, prepending "dkms-" to dkms sources instead of
appending "*-dkms" would be a good idea too (
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dkms#Package_name).

Cheers,
-- 
Maxime