[arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'

[Jeff Andros]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM, cantabile <cantabile.desu at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
>
>> On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums<lists at baums-on-web.de>  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