[arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'

[jesse jaara]

2011/5/25 Ray Rashif <schiv at archlinux.org>

> On 26 May 2011 03:15, Mauro Santos <registo.mailling at 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.)