On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 09:55:05PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > >The Linux kernel source packages are all providing a virtual package > >called kernel-source, so that other packages such as kernel patches can > >depend on them. The freebsd kernel (kfreebsd5-source) was recently > >included in Debian (mainly for the GNU/kFreeBSd port) and also provides > >kernel-source. > > > >This seems to confuse the users (what I understand) as we received a bug > >telling that aptitude proposes to install kfreebsd5-source when installing > >a kernel-patch. > > > >That's why we've deciced to provide the freebsd-kernel-source virtual > >package instead of kernel-source. > > > >I think it would be nice that the Linux kernel-source packages follow this > >policy, and thus provide linux-kernel-source. I don't say all package > >should be reuploaded, but maybe in a first time, the newest uploads could > >provide both kernel-source and linux-kernel-source, and the kernel patches > >depends on kernel-source | linux-kernel-source. Then in a second time it > >would be possible to remove references to kernel-source. > > > >I would like to have your comments on that. > > > >Bye, > >Aurelien > > Hi Aurelien, > > The kernel team is currently planning a transition to a different naming > and packaging scheme. Anticipating the inclusion of freebsd and hurd > kernels into the distribution we have pretty much agreed that future > kernel packages are going to be called linux-source, linux-headers, > linux-image and so on. It would be nice if you could adopt the same naming > scheme for freebsd packages (freebsd-source, freebsd-image, etc). It will > then be consistent everywhere and will allow to avoid the namespace > clashes.
Notice that i believe the source package should be linux-kernel, and not linux-source. Would make more sense that way. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
