On 04-Aug-05, 05:09 (CDT), Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I know what the rationale is: to avoid offending the *BSD and Hurd
> > users, because, ya know, they have kernels too. And if we were starting
> > from scratch, I'd be all for it. But at this point, it's just a stupid
> > annoying change that makes it hard for people to find updates.
>
> > To change it know is just silly political correctness.
^^^^ "now", of course.
>
> I think that the kernel packaging team members should be able to do
> their work without being insulted.
I was criticizing the naming change, not the kernel developers. If
you read the thread, the original proposal about improving the kernel
packaging contained no such change.
What was the *technical* justification for renaming "kernel-image*" to
"linux-image*"? How does it make our users' experience better?
In fact, it's worse. Limiting a package search to names containing "kernel"
turns up pretty much only kernel related packages. Try the same thing
with 'image' or 'linux'.
One can't even claim that using 'kernel-image*' will confuse the users
of the *BSD or Hurd ports, because those packages simply won't be in
their Package files, will they?
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
