On 26 May 2011 03:15, Mauro Santos <registo.mailling@xxxxxxxxx> 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
