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 11:21:11AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:37:24PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > In what situation would the linux-kernel-headers package be needed
> > > seperate from libc?
> >
> > Ths iss
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
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:23:30PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:20:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > It does not need to. Feel free to propose a patch to document this
> > more clearly (I don't really want to rename it again...)
>
> Add something like this to t
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:20:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> It does not need to. Feel free to propose a patch to document this
> more clearly (I don't really want to rename it again...)
Add something like this to the description:
These headers are not used to compile kernel modules,
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 11:05:20AM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
> >> So your "substantive reason" is: "The name of the new package is
> >> poorly chosen."? - I don't think so, it describes the contents rather
> >> well, doesn't it?
>
> > Well, the package contains the header files approp
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:37:24PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In what situation would the linux-kernel-headers package be needed
> > seperate from libc?
>
> Ths issue is not whether it is needed separately from libc-dev, the
> issue is that it c
Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In what situation would the linux-kernel-headers package be needed
> seperate from libc?
Ths issue is not whether it is needed separately from libc-dev, the
issue is that it comes from a different upstream source and thus is
best handled in a separa
Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:23:14PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I don't know whether this package needs to match the kernel version or
>> > not, but if not I think the name is poorly chosen.
>> So yo
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:23:14PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know whether this package needs to match the kernel version or
> > not, but if not I think the name is poorly chosen.
>
> So your "substantive reason" is: "The name of the n
Otto Wyss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry this message go to the poster instead of the list.
>
There have always been some kernel headers in libc6-dev, they've
just been split out into a separate package now. Several of
these headers are referenced by headers provided by glibc
Sorry this message go to the poster instead of the list.
> > > There have always been some kernel headers in libc6-dev, they've just
> > > been split out into a separate package now. Several of these headers
> > > are referenced by headers provided by glibc which would break those
> > > headers i
Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:03:17PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:17:39PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:21:14AM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> Since when does the package libc6-dev depend on linux
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:18:29PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:20:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > I don't know whether this package needs to match the kernel version or
> > > not, but if not I think the name is poorly chosen.
> >
> > It does not need to. Fe
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:20:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I don't know whether this package needs to match the kernel version or
> > not, but if not I think the name is poorly chosen.
>
> It does not need to. Feel free to propose a patch to document this
> more clearly (I don't reall
25 matches
Mail list logo
