Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thursday 26 of May 2011 23:18:29 Vytautas Stankevičius wrote:
> On Thursday 26 of May 2011 21:19:36 Filip Filipov wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras
wrote:
> > > Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the
> > > kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
> > > are named "linux-{version}". :)
> >
> > yes. My idea was that if you look at it, at an higher abstraction level
> > you have:
> > 1) if you search for 'linux' you don't go to kernel.org
> > 2) if you search for 'kernel' you go to kernel.org and get an linux-...
> > named package.
> >
> > so at the end there is no correct or wrong name for a choice. The answer
> > to my "question"(do you?) is here yes.
>
> pacman -Ss linux has more noise than pacman -Ss kernel. Had the same
> "problem" on debian, but this might have been my defect as I was comming
> from Arch :)
>
> Distribution is named Arch*Linux*, so "kernel" sounds more to the point,
> but upstream has another opinion.
>
> Just my 2c
>
> Regards,
100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless,
imagine google search for broken wifi:
gg linux broadcom wifi problem
or
gg kernel broadcom wifi problem
cheers!
m.
--
Marek Otahal :o)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] netcfg 2.5.5-1
On 2011/5/23 Rémy Oudompheng wrote: > version 2.5.5 > - new connection types: openvpn (FS#21490), vlan > - new option HIDDEN (for hidden SSIDs) > - new option SKIPNOCARRIER (FS#21755) > - default WPA driver is now nl80211 > - minor fixes and improvements (FS#17190, FS#17546, > FS#20150, FS#20569, FS#21377, FS#23293) > - better zsh completion file (FS#19823) > > Please test on various network settings :) It would be nice to have other signoffs and then that someone pushes that into [core] for me. Then I will start pushing the change to remove /var/run/* directories from package and probably merge several patches from the bug tracker. Rémy.
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thursday 26 of May 2011 21:19:36 Filip Filipov wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> > Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the
> > kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
> > are named "linux-{version}". :)
>
> yes. My idea was that if you look at it, at an higher abstraction level
> you have:
> 1) if you search for 'linux' you don't go to kernel.org
> 2) if you search for 'kernel' you go to kernel.org and get an linux-...
> named package.
>
> so at the end there is no correct or wrong name for a choice. The answer to
> my "question"(do you?) is here yes.
pacman -Ss linux has more noise than pacman -Ss kernel. Had the same "problem"
on debian, but this might have been my defect as I was comming from Arch :)
Distribution is named Arch*Linux*, so "kernel" sounds more to the point, but
upstream has another opinion.
Just my 2c
Regards,
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the
> kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
> are named "linux-{version}". :)
>
yes. My idea was that if you look at it, at an higher abstraction level you
have:
1) if you search for 'linux' you don't go to kernel.org
2) if you search for 'kernel' you go to kernel.org and get an linux-...
named package.
so at the end there is no correct or wrong name for a choice. The answer to
my "question"(do you?) is here yes.
Re: [arch-general] [signoff] kernel26 2.6.38.7-1
Am Donnerstag 26 Mai 2011 schrieb Bogdan Ionuț: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 22:03, Tobias Powalowski wrote: > > Upstream update. This package is NOT in testing (2.6.39 currently > > resides there), but at: > > http://dev.archlinux.org/~tpowa/kernel26/ > > > > please signoff for both arches. > > > > greetings > > tpowa > > -- > > Tobias Powalowski > > Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) > > http://www.archlinux.org > > tp...@archlinux.org > > there's the wrong patch for 2.6.38.7 on ftp. can you upload the right one > too? thanks. fixed -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tp...@archlinux.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 26 May 2011 19:02, Filip Filipov wrote:
> about proposal to the "linux" name change. I don't label my car by my
> engine name, or label my engine by my car name , do you?
Linux is the name of the kernel so using "linux" as the name of the
kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
are named "linux-{version}". :)
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
about proposal to the "linux" name change. I don't label my car by my engine name, or label my engine by my car name , do you?
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Thomas Bächler wrote: > Am 26.05.2011 14:48, schrieb Yaro Kasear: >> On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote: >>> Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! >>> >>> You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. >> >> I'm sure it's possible. > > Ehm ... no. The suggestion was that someone would provide alternative > kernels to Linux within the same set of binary packages. > > You can't just "install hurd" or "install a BSD kernel" without > rebuilding all your binaries for that particular kernel (in many cases, > also the APIs change so you have to adjust your source code). > Furthermore, this discussion is pointless. > Either way, the distribution name is Arch _Linux_, which means the kernel is linux. So either "linux" or "kernel" are valid names, being linux implicit in "kernel".
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Am 26.05.2011 14:48, schrieb Yaro Kasear: > On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote: >> Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: >>> Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like >>> these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating >>> System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, >>> and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really >>> interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple >>> kernels! >> >> You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. > > I'm sure it's possible. Ehm ... no. The suggestion was that someone would provide alternative kernels to Linux within the same set of binary packages. You can't just "install hurd" or "install a BSD kernel" without rebuilding all your binaries for that particular kernel (in many cases, also the APIs change so you have to adjust your source code). Furthermore, this discussion is pointless. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote: > Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: > > Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like > > these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating > > System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, > > and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really > > interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple > > kernels! > > You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. I'm sure it's possible. I'd like to "it's bloody pointless" as my reason. We're Arch, not Debian. Notice how Arch officially only supports x86 and x86_64. Are people going to start wasting our time with requests to support PPC, SPARC, ARM, SH*, what have you, now?
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:28 AM, XeCycle wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is >> going to be 3.0. >> Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to >> modify it anyway. >> Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow >> project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different >> kernel already. > > I'd like to suggest a more complex name: > "linux-kernel". Related packages can be called > "linux-api-headers", "linux-docs". > > Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like > these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating > System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, > and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really > interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple > kernels! > >> Best, >> Bernardo > Actually Debian already provides the Linux, FreeBSD and Hurd kernels. Best regards, Víctor
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:57:49AM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: > Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: > > Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like > > these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating > > System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, > > and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really > > interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple > > kernels! > > You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. > Are you that sure? What if someone developed a "Linux compatible" kernel? -- Carl Lei (XeCycle) Department of Physics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University OpenPGP public key: 7795E591 Fingerprint: 1FB6 7F1F D45D F681 C845 27F7 8D71 8EC4 7795 E591 Facebook: Carl Lei Twitter: XeCycle Blog: http://xecycle.blogspot.com Thu, 26 May 2011 16:16:28 +0800 pgpyEiCe2ZfsS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
2011/5/25, cantabile : > On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote: >> On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums 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 > +1 for "linux" too
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 25.05.2011 21:35, jesse jaara wrote: 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. Wouldn't "hurd" clash with our distro's name "ArchLinux"?
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: > Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like > these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating > System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, > and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really > interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple > kernels! You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 05/26/2011 06:46 AM, cantabile wrote: On 05/26/2011 07:28 AM, XeCycle wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named "Arch Operating System", providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! I hope you're joking there. ;) http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/kfreebsd-image-8-amd64 There is no one holding you back to create a kfreebsd kernel in AUR ;) -- Jelle van der Waa
