On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM, cantabile <cantabile.desu@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote: > >> 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. >> > 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
