On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
