[arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:09 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"

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

... however i would say maybe make a group called `kernel`, and even
include stuff like `linux-api-headers` and whatnot, since groups
correlate with abstract/purpose, whereas packages are concrete
implementations of said abstractions.

man, seeing linux go "3.0" make me feel like i'm about to witness some
kind of extravagant world event -- all i've known is 2.6 -- i'm pretty
sure that thought alone instantly makes me a nerd though (with social
skills to boot! hooray!)

-- 

C Anthony