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-* o
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 08:43:52PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 20:14, Jonathan Dowland 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 alterna
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-* o
Hi,
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-kern
On 06-Nov-03, 13:47 (CST), Keegan Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 01:14:31PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > 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 H
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-* o
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 th
Scripsit Zenaan Harkness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> When I search for packages, I think I'd prefer (assuming I want
> to see all kernel- type packages), I'd prefer kernel-linux-*,
> kernel-hurd-*, kernel-freebsd-*, etc.
Instead of trying to cram that into package names, would it not be
more appropriat
also sprach Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.11.06.0243 +0100]:
> > 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?
> [...]
> Martin Kraaf
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 12:14, Jonathan Dowland 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
On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 20:14, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Ryan Underwood wrote:
>
> > Before that realization, it seemed like the type of random cruft that
> > sometimes gets pulled in on dist-upgrade; a name change would help
> > alleviate that initial perc
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:13:28AM -0600, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> Before that realization, it seemed like the type of random cruft that
> sometimes gets pulled in on dist-upgrade; a name change would help
> alleviate that initial perception, IMO. Why not libc6-linux-headers?
I'm in two minds wh
12 matches
Mail list logo
