Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 05/30/2011 07:39 AM, 俞颐超 wrote: The next kernel version will be 3.0 Any decision now? On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Kwpolskakwpol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote: 100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless, imagine google search for broken wifi: gg linux broadcom wifi problem or gg kernel broadcom wifi problem cheers! m. The `proper' google search terms are: WiFi Problem under GNU/Linux with a Broadcom [card model etc]. -- Cheers, -- Kwpolska (http://kwpolska.co.cc) O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org # vim:set textwidth=70: I'm fairly sure the archlinux dev's are awesome enough to make up a name. btw: 08:44 jelly1 | !when 08:44 phrik | When it's ready. -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Jelle van der Waa je...@vdwaa.nl wrote: On 05/30/2011 07:39 AM, 俞颐超 wrote: The next kernel version will be 3.0 Any decision now? On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Kwpolskakwpol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote: 100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless, imagine google search for broken wifi: gg linux broadcom wifi problem or gg kernel broadcom wifi problem cheers! m. The `proper' google search terms are: WiFi Problem under GNU/Linux with a Broadcom [card model etc]. -- Cheers, -- Kwpolska (http://kwpolska.co.cc) O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org # vim:set textwidth=70: I'm fairly sure the archlinux dev's are awesome enough to make up a name. btw: 08:44 jelly1 | !when 08:44 phrik | When it's ready. rc1 is already out (on kernel.org). I personally prefer kernel less change and avoid ambiguous word: linux. -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
The next kernel version will be 3.0 Any decision now? On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Kwpolska kwpol...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote: 100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless, imagine google search for broken wifi: gg linux broadcom wifi problem or gg kernel broadcom wifi problem cheers! m. The `proper' google search terms are: WiFi Problem under GNU/Linux with a Broadcom [card model etc]. -- Cheers, -- Kwpolska (http://kwpolska.co.cc) O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org # vim:set textwidth=70:
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:57:23PM +0200, Marek Otahal wrote: 100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless, imagine google search for broken wifi: gg linux broadcom wifi problem or gg kernel broadcom wifi problem cheers! m. The `proper' google search terms are: WiFi Problem under GNU/Linux with a Broadcom [card model etc]. -- Cheers, -- Kwpolska (http://kwpolska.co.cc) O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org # vim:set textwidth=70: pgpecTouxLjO0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 05/26/2011 06:46 AM, cantabile wrote: On 05/26/2011 07:28 AM, XeCycle wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named Arch Operating System, providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! I hope you're joking there. ;) http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/kfreebsd-image-8-amd64 There is no one holding you back to create a kfreebsd kernel in AUR ;) -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named Arch Operating System, providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
2011/5/25, cantabile cantabile.d...@gmail.com: On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote: On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baumsli...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself actually is only the kernel. I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the commands, for .eg: I want a kernel for this system == pacman -S kernel A derivative distribution or third-party repository which does not use the Linux kernel can then still provide a 'kernel' package. hurr durr Package names (ours at least) usually go by the project's name, as far as I can see. +1 for linux -- cantabile - proudly contributing to the bikeshedding :p Jayne is a girl's name. -- River +1 for linux too
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:57:49AM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named Arch Operating System, providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. Are you that sure? What if someone developed a Linux compatible kernel? -- Carl Lei (XeCycle) Department of Physics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University OpenPGP public key: 7795E591 Fingerprint: 1FB6 7F1F D45D F681 C845 27F7 8D71 8EC4 7795 E591 Facebook: Carl Lei Twitter: XeCycle Blog: http://xecycle.blogspot.com Thu, 26 May 2011 16:16:28 +0800 pgpyEiCe2ZfsS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:28 AM, XeCycle xecy...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. I'd like to suggest a more complex name: linux-kernel. Related packages can be called linux-api-headers, linux-docs. Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named Arch Operating System, providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! Best, Bernardo Actually Debian already provides the Linux, FreeBSD and Hurd kernels. Best regards, Víctor
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named Arch Operating System, providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. I'm sure it's possible. I'd like to it's bloody pointless as my reason. We're Arch, not Debian. Notice how Arch officially only supports x86 and x86_64. Are people going to start wasting our time with requests to support PPC, SPARC, ARM, SH*, what have you, now?
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Am 26.05.2011 14:48, schrieb Yaro Kasear: On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named Arch Operating System, providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. I'm sure it's possible. Ehm ... no. The suggestion was that someone would provide alternative kernels to Linux within the same set of binary packages. You can't just install hurd or install a BSD kernel without rebuilding all your binaries for that particular kernel (in many cases, also the APIs change so you have to adjust your source code). Furthermore, this discussion is pointless. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 26.05.2011 14:48, schrieb Yaro Kasear: On Thursday, May 26, 2011 02:57:49 Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 26.05.2011 06:28, schrieb XeCycle: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named Arch Operating System, providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! You know why nobody has done it before? Because it's not possible. I'm sure it's possible. Ehm ... no. The suggestion was that someone would provide alternative kernels to Linux within the same set of binary packages. You can't just install hurd or install a BSD kernel without rebuilding all your binaries for that particular kernel (in many cases, also the APIs change so you have to adjust your source code). Furthermore, this discussion is pointless. Either way, the distribution name is Arch _Linux_, which means the kernel is linux. So either linux or kernel are valid names, being linux implicit in kernel.
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
about proposal to the linux name change. I don't label my car by my engine name, or label my engine by my car name , do you?
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 26 May 2011 19:02, Filip Filipov pilif.pi...@googlemail.com wrote:
about proposal to the linux name change. I don't label my car by my
engine name, or label my engine by my car name , do you?
Linux is the name of the kernel so using linux as the name of the
kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
are named linux-{version}. :)
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras foutre...@gmail.comwrote:
Linux is the name of the kernel so using linux as the name of the
kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
are named linux-{version}. :)
yes. My idea was that if you look at it, at an higher abstraction level you
have:
1) if you search for 'linux' you don't go to kernel.org
2) if you search for 'kernel' you go to kernel.org and get an linux-...
named package.
so at the end there is no correct or wrong name for a choice. The answer to
my question(do you?) is here yes.
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thursday 26 of May 2011 21:19:36 Filip Filipov wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras foutre...@gmail.comwrote:
Linux is the name of the kernel so using linux as the name of the
kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
are named linux-{version}. :)
yes. My idea was that if you look at it, at an higher abstraction level
you have:
1) if you search for 'linux' you don't go to kernel.org
2) if you search for 'kernel' you go to kernel.org and get an linux-...
named package.
so at the end there is no correct or wrong name for a choice. The answer to
my question(do you?) is here yes.
pacman -Ss linux has more noise than pacman -Ss kernel. Had the same problem
on debian, but this might have been my defect as I was comming from Arch :)
Distribution is named Arch*Linux*, so kernel sounds more to the point, but
upstream has another opinion.
Just my 2c
Regards,
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Thursday 26 of May 2011 23:18:29 Vytautas Stankevičius wrote:
On Thursday 26 of May 2011 21:19:36 Filip Filipov wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 19:34, Evangelos Foutras
foutre...@gmail.comwrote:
Linux is the name of the kernel so using linux as the name of the
kernel package would be correct. After all, the tarballs on kernel.org
are named linux-{version}. :)
yes. My idea was that if you look at it, at an higher abstraction level
you have:
1) if you search for 'linux' you don't go to kernel.org
2) if you search for 'kernel' you go to kernel.org and get an linux-...
named package.
so at the end there is no correct or wrong name for a choice. The answer
to my question(do you?) is here yes.
pacman -Ss linux has more noise than pacman -Ss kernel. Had the same
problem on debian, but this might have been my defect as I was comming
from Arch :)
Distribution is named Arch*Linux*, so kernel sounds more to the point,
but upstream has another opinion.
Just my 2c
Regards,
100% agreed! although i think this thread is pointless,
imagine google search for broken wifi:
gg linux broadcom wifi problem
or
gg kernel broadcom wifi problem
cheers!
m.
--
Marek Otahal :o)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Bernardo Barros bernardobarr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. Best, Bernardo i suggest we make a virtual package kernel, and kernel-headers. all flavors of kernel, like vanilla kernel26, kernel26-lts, and so on, should provide kernel, and so does all flavors of kernel-headers.
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 05/25/2011 05:20 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. Best, Bernardo When the rumours are over and linux is going to release his first rc1, then it would make sense to rename kernel26 to linux3.0. Except that the lts version will be still kernel26-lts, so maybe kernel3.0 would be better. I'm sure Tobias will come up with a nice solution :) -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Jelle van der Waa je...@vdwaa.nl wrote: On 05/25/2011 05:20 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. Best, Bernardo When the rumours are over and linux is going to release his first rc1, then it would make sense to rename kernel26 to linux3.0. Except that the lts version will be still kernel26-lts, so maybe kernel3.0 would be better. I'm sure Tobias will come up with a nice solution :) -- Jelle van der Waa Heh, yes, in the end Tobias will give us a great solution. I imagine he has long had plans for how to handle this!
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Am 25.05.2011 17:20, schrieb Bernardo Barros: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. This is a non-issue. The package name was wrong all along, so why not let it remain wrong? There are always potential problems with replacing packages, in this case the backup-file /etc/mkinitcpio.d/kernel26.preset which will not be kept with such a change. Changing file names in /boot is another such problem. That said, at some point we might fix that name, and the package name should be 'linux', of course. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Am Wed, 25 May 2011 17:26:19 +0200 schrieb Jelle van der Waa je...@vdwaa.nl: When the rumours are over and linux is going to release his first rc1, then it would make sense to rename kernel26 to linux3.0. Except that the lts version will be still kernel26-lts, so maybe kernel3.0 would be better. I'm sure Tobias will come up with a nice solution :) I guess the best name is kernel30. Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself actually is only the kernel. That said the Linux kernel is hosted at kernel.org and not at linux.org. Kernel is just more precisely than linux. So why changing this naming convention? Heiko
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:20:46 Bernardo Barros wrote: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. Best, Bernardo What rumors are these? A quick Google search shows nothing of the sort aside from idle speculation from years ago.
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Yaro Kasear y...@marupa.net wrote: On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:20:46 Bernardo Barros wrote: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. Best, Bernardo What rumors are these? A quick Google search shows nothing of the sort aside from idle speculation from years ago. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=OTQ3NQ
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Am Wed, 25 May 2011 17:38:33 +0200 schrieb Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de: I guess the best name is kernel30. Forgot to mention that the kernel package is called kernel... in every distro I know. Heiko
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Yaro Kasear y...@marupa.net wrote: On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:20:46 Bernardo Barros wrote: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. Best, Bernardo What rumors are these? A quick Google search shows nothing of the sort aside from idle speculation from years ago. Check lkml.org. Aside from that (and I realise that this is contrary to the spirit of bikshedding): I agree with Thomas (if eventually the kernel package changes names, and regardless of what it changes to, the new name should not contain a version number). -t
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 05/25/2011 05:40 PM, Yaro Kasear wrote: On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:20:46 Bernardo Barros wrote: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. Best, Bernardo What rumors are these? A quick Google search shows nothing of the sort aside from idle speculation from years ago. Read the lkml mailing list. https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/23/358 -- Jelle van der Waa
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara: This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for Linux 3.0 are - the numbers are getting too big (2.6.40) - the 2.6 prefix has no meaning, and 3.0 for a release and 3.0.1 for a bugfix release is shorter than 2.6.40 anf 2.6.40.1 - some products are linux 2.6 ready when they support linux 2.6.9. - Linux is now 30 years old (more or less), so 3.0 sounds nice. The original reason though was the first one: Linus thought that the number 40 is just too big. Except the name and the usual changes, there is absolutely nothing new about this release. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
If the 3 will stand the the third decade (as the idea is to make a system based on time not features), in 10 years we would have to rename it again to 'kernel4'. :-)
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 05/25/11 11:42, Heiko Baums wrote: Am Wed, 25 May 2011 17:38:33 +0200 schrieb Heiko Baumsli...@baums-on-web.de: I guess the best name is kernel30. Forgot to mention that the kernel package is called kernel... in every distro I know. BTW, Debian and Ubuntu switched to calling their linux-kernel-related packages 'linux' (previously 'kernel') a few years ago. For example, there is http://packages.debian.org/stable/kernel/linux-image-686 -Isaac
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Just 'linux' is the most pure and KISS choice. :-)
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Bernardo Barros bernardobarr...@gmail.comwrote: If the 3 will stand the the third decade (as the idea is to make a system based on time not features), in 10 years we would have to rename it again to 'kernel4'. :-) But why the 26 or 30 is needed at the end of the package name? -- Cédric Girard
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 05/25/2011 06:53 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara: This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for Linux 3.0 are - the numbers are getting too big (2.6.40) - the 2.6 prefix has no meaning, and 3.0 for a release and 3.0.1 for a bugfix release is shorter than 2.6.40 anf 2.6.40.1 - some products are linux 2.6 ready when they support linux 2.6.9. - Linux is now 30 years old (more or less), so 3.0 sounds nice. following the gnome steps, GNOME OS is near!! /joke The original reason though was the first one: Linus thought that the number 40 is just too big. Except the name and the usual changes, there is absolutely nothing new about this release. -- Ionuț
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara: This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for Linux 3.0 are - the numbers are getting too big (2.6.40) - the 2.6 prefix has no meaning, and 3.0 for a release and 3.0.1 for a bugfix release is shorter than 2.6.40 anf 2.6.40.1 Of course, the 3. would still have no meaning :P Sander
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:14:55 Sander Jansen wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara: This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for Linux 3.0 are - the numbers are getting too big (2.6.40) - the 2.6 prefix has no meaning, and 3.0 for a release and 3.0.1 for a bugfix release is shorter than 2.6.40 anf 2.6.40.1 Of course, the 3. would still have no meaning :P Sander I heard from several reliable sources it'll be 2.8, not 3.0. Why not just call the package kernel?
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
Am 25.05.2011 18:21, schrieb Yaro Kasear: On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:14:55 Sander Jansen wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 25.05.2011 17:43, schrieb jesse jaara: This is from recent kerbel mailing list post. A voice inside Torvals head is telling hin that it would be time to go for 3.0 versioning Everyone, don't get too excited. The reasons for Linux 3.0 are - the numbers are getting too big (2.6.40) - the 2.6 prefix has no meaning, and 3.0 for a release and 3.0.1 for a bugfix release is shorter than 2.6.40 anf 2.6.40.1 Of course, the 3. would still have no meaning :P Sander I heard from several reliable sources it'll be 2.8, not 3.0. I doubt that. After Linus discoverted that 2.8.0 is longer than 3.0, and thus the -stable releases could use the third digit instead of the fourth, he was pretty fond of the 3.0 idea. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baums li...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself actually is only the kernel. I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the commands, for .eg: I want a kernel for this system == pacman -S kernel A derivative distribution or third-party repository which does not use the Linux kernel can then still provide a 'kernel' package. -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote: On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baumsli...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself actually is only the kernel. I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the commands, for .eg: I want a kernel for this system == pacman -S kernel A derivative distribution or third-party repository which does not use the Linux kernel can then still provide a 'kernel' package. hurr durr Package names (ours at least) usually go by the project's name, as far as I can see. +1 for linux -- cantabile - proudly contributing to the bikeshedding :p Jayne is a girl's name. -- River
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 25-05-2011 19:36, Ray Rashif wrote: I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the commands, for .eg: I want a kernel for this system == pacman -S kernel That sounds good actually, arch is bleeding edge so naming the packages kernel and kernel-lts should be enough, the package version would take care of the rest even if the version jumps to 2.8 then 3.0 and then 2012.01 or whatever. -- Mauro Santos
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:09 PM, cantabile cantabile.d...@gmail.comwrote: On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote: On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baumsli...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself actually is only the kernel. I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the commands, for .eg: I want a kernel for this system == pacman -S kernel A derivative distribution or third-party repository which does not use the Linux kernel can then still provide a 'kernel' package. hurr durr Package names (ours at least) usually go by the project's name, as far as I can see. +1 for linux -- cantabile - proudly contributing to the bikeshedding :p Jayne is a girl's name. -- River I agree with naming it linux if there are other kernels running around in the repo... what about naming the actual package linux and aliasing kernel there as the default kernel? --Jeff
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 26 May 2011 03:15, Mauro Santos registo.maill...@gmail.com wrote: On 25-05-2011 19:36, Ray Rashif wrote: I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the commands, for .eg: I want a kernel for this system == pacman -S kernel That sounds good actually, arch is bleeding edge so naming the packages kernel and kernel-lts should be enough, the package version would take care of the rest even if the version jumps to 2.8 then 3.0 and then 2012.01 or whatever. The name would also be backward compatible (if needed), i.e: kernel26 == a 2.6 kernel package kernel == a 3.0 kernel package -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:09 PM, cantabile cantabile.d...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/25/2011 09:36 PM, Ray Rashif wrote: On 25 May 2011 23:38, Heiko Baumsli...@baums-on-web.de wrote: Linux3.0 can easily cause misunderstandings as Linux is usually used as a generic term for the whole system, the distros, etc. even if the correct naming of the whole system is GNU/Linux and Linux itself actually is only the kernel. I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the commands, for .eg: I want a kernel for this system == pacman -S kernel A derivative distribution or third-party repository which does not use the Linux kernel can then still provide a 'kernel' package. hurr durr Package names (ours at least) usually go by the project's name, as far as I can see. +1 for linux i know this topic is pretty much the definition of bikeshed ... but i agree with the linux package ... i don't recall ever writing `pacman -S sound` or `pacman -S make-my-monitors-have-a-gui-thingy` :-D ... however i would say maybe make a group called `kernel`, and even include stuff like `linux-api-headers` and whatnot, since groups correlate with abstract/purpose, whereas packages are concrete implementations of said abstractions. man, seeing linux go 3.0 make me feel like i'm about to witness some kind of extravagant world event -- all i've known is 2.6 -- i'm pretty sure that thought alone instantly makes me a nerd though (with social skills to boot! hooray!) -- C Anthony
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
2011/5/25 Ray Rashif sc...@archlinux.org On 26 May 2011 03:15, Mauro Santos registo.maill...@gmail.com wrote: On 25-05-2011 19:36, Ray Rashif wrote: I agree. I'd like for the package to be called simply 'kernel'. That fits in with our straightforward approach to package-naming (and packaging in general). As long as we can linguistically correlate the commands, for .eg: I want a kernel for this system == pacman -S kernel That sounds good actually, arch is bleeding edge so naming the packages kernel and kernel-lts should be enough, the package version would take care of the rest even if the version jumps to 2.8 then 3.0 and then 2012.01 or whatever. The name would also be backward compatible (if needed), i.e: kernel26 == a 2.6 kernel package kernel == a 3.0 kernel package -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10 Id say that if we wan't to go the way, where we take other kernels into account too (hurd) we should name linux-kernel and gurd would be hurd-kernel. But I see it extreamly unlikely for hurd or anyother kernel to ever become offical part of arch, atleast not in near future. At the moment I see 'kernel' as best option. Linux term is used when speaking about anything connected to GNU/Linux, distros are linux and so on, its way too broad term. Kernel means the core part of the operating system, so it fits bettter. -- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. ( ) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 26 May 2011 03:28, C Anthony Risinger anth...@xtfx.me wrote: i know this topic is pretty much the definition of bikeshed ... but i agree with the linux package ... i don't recall ever writing `pacman -S sound` or `pacman -S make-my-monitors-have-a-gui-thingy` :-D You are correct, bikeshed it is, as long as we talk about the package name. But, that is not the kind of correlation I was refering to. All I meant was being straightforward. If you want gnome, you type pacman -S gnome, not pacman -S gtk-desktop-environment. So, if you want the kernel for your system, since there can be different kernels but not different gnomes or different linux's, you type..whatever :P -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:33:42PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: This is a non-issue. The package name was wrong all along, so why not let it remain wrong? Why was the package named as it was? What were the reasons given when it was created? I've wondered this in the past, especially since other distros don't follow the same convention as Arch.
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote: Hi there, There are rumors that the next version number of the Linux Kernel is going to be 3.0. Since we choosed 'kernel26' as the package name, we will have to modify it anyway. Why not just 'linux 3.0'? Just an idea.. since we have the fellow project 'Arch Hurd' providing 'hurd' as an alternative different kernel already. I'd like to suggest a more complex name: linux-kernel. Related packages can be called linux-api-headers, linux-docs. Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named Arch Operating System, providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! Best, Bernardo -- Carl Lei (XeCycle) Department of Physics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University OpenPGP public key: 7795E591 Fingerprint: 1FB6 7F1F D45D F681 C845 27F7 8D71 8EC4 7795 E591 Facebook: Carl Lei Twitter: XeCycle Blog: http://xecycle.blogspot.com Thu, 26 May 2011 12:19:59 +0800 pgpCpkGwtZzYy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] Future of 'kernel26'
On 05/26/2011 07:28 AM, XeCycle wrote: On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:20:46PM -0300, Bernardo Barros wrote: Perhaps we may provide alternative kernels? With names like these, we may get a brand new project named Arch Operating System, providing Linux, BSD, Hurd or even more as kernels, and users are free to choose any one. Well, this is really interesting. It'd be the first OS to provide multiple kernels! I hope you're joking there. ;) http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/kfreebsd-image-8-amd64 -- cantabile Jayne is a girl's name. -- River
