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?
The image file for kernel A may not be of much use when you are running kernel B, but I wouldn't suggest that nobody would have a need for it. Sources and headers would be more useful as you may want to examine the code of one kernel if you are working on another, and use sections etc. -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/
