On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:09 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" i know this topic is pretty much the definition of "bikeshed" ... but i agree with the "linux" package ... i don't recall ever writing `pacman -S sound` or `pacman -S make-my-monitors-have-a-gui-thingy` :-D ... however i would say maybe make a group called `kernel`, and even include stuff like `linux-api-headers` and whatnot, since groups correlate with abstract/purpose, whereas packages are concrete implementations of said abstractions. man, seeing linux go "3.0" make me feel like i'm about to witness some kind of extravagant world event -- all i've known is 2.6 -- i'm pretty sure that thought alone instantly makes me a nerd though (with social skills to boot! hooray!) -- C Anthony
