On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums<li...@baums-on-web.de> 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
