2011/5/25 Ray Rashif <schiv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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 > Id say that if we wan't to go the way, where we take other kernels into account too (hurd) we should name linux-kernel and gurd would be hurd-kernel. But I see it extreamly unlikely for hurd or anyother kernel to ever become offical part of arch, atleast not in near future. At the moment I see 'kernel' as best option. Linux term is used when speaking about anything connected to GNU/Linux, distros are linux and so on, its way too broad term. Kernel means the core part of the operating system, so it fits bettter. -- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)
