Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
I would have suggested using
kernel-hurt-image
kernel-hurt-source
kernel-kfreebsd-image
kernel-kfreebsd-source
kernel-linux-image
kernel-linux-source
All kernels next to each other, all linux stuff next to each
other. Very easy to search and scroll through.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
