Hi, On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:03:18PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > This is a good point. Debian makes an effort to be kernel > independent, so why does the kernel-source install Linux? > > I think we should rename to linux-kernel-source, linux-kernel-image > and so on...
I very much agree with this sentiment. However, what about system-level utilities and essential packages? How does a Debian *BSD system differ from a Debian GNU system (or for that matter, a Debian GNU/*BSD system), and how should the dependencies between "bare-metal" packages and the kernel (whether it be linux-kernel-source, freebsd-kernel-source, etc) be constructed? Maybe this is silly, but perhaps the "arch" portion of the apt sources could also be fine-tuned to include the kernel type. (I guess similar to the unique machine strings from config.sub and friends). A linux-gnu-i386 distribution, a freebsd-gnu-i386, freebsd-bsd-i386, et. al. While this would certainly approach a goal of greater universality and kernel/machine independence of the distribution, would that gain be worth the effort? Perhaps once the Debian/*BSD have stabilized and reach a greater level of usability, we can ask these questions again later... -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253
