Hi, On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:14:31PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 05-Nov-03, 19:14 (CST), Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm in two minds whether or not to ask this, but I've been wondering > > about the naming scheme for linux packages - kernel-*. Why not > > linux-kernel-* or linux-* ? If alternative kernels in debian become > > more popular, is there a potential for confusion in the future? > > Surely these won't all show up in the same Packages file...if you're > running GNU/KFreeBSD, it will be a FreeBSD kernel, right? Why would the > Linux and Hurd kernels even be in the list?
I think, when one considers this "ideal" state of Debian where a Debian userland is portable to any architecture and Unix-like kernel in existence, you really just have to consider every combination of arch/kernel to actually be as a different architecture. Perhaps the best approach is to add a kernel tag to the Debian architecture, similar to GNU config.guess string. i386-linux is thus different from i386-freebsd, both different from mips-*. Packages for that architecture/kernel combination would be maintained in the pool alongside everything else by the buildds. Would probably require significant reworking of lots of things. :( Another (rather sillier idea) involved a virtual package *-kernel to indicate to packages which userland the system was being run on, but I haven't any idea where I was really going with that. -- Ryan Underwood, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>