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. -- Mauro Santos
