Hello Rene, >From my point of view i agree with the renaming. since 2.4 is not used, at least i removed it from production for quite some time.
Regards, Iulian Demetrescu > Hi Roger, > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:46 PM, Roger Mason wrote: > >> Hi Rene, >> >> On 14-Mar-12, at 8:22 AM, René Rebe wrote: >> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> I have a Request For Comment: Since the unforeseen version bump of the >>> Linux kernel from 2.6.x to 3.x, ... our primary OS kernel package >>> "limux26" is a little misnamed. >>> >>> If the rename would be easy, I would have long renamed the linux26 pkg >>> to linxu3, ... but it requires touching much more than a dozen files, >>> ... >>> >>> While thinking we should finally address this, I came to the conclusion >>> I would like to delete the quite obsolete linux24 package, and rename >>> the linux26 package just "linux". >>> >>> Any thoughts on this? >>> >>> René >> >> I have no problem with this, but my response is, perhaps, naiive as I >> don't understand what consequences there may be, if any. > > > For one thing this was to find out if anyone screams about loosing > "linux24" :-) A rename of the majorly used package "linux" means many > other, e.g. architecture and target overloads, need to be adapted, etc., > not to mention shared file conflicts on user systems when they emerge an > update which will clash between "linux26" and "linux", though "linux" > without number prefix is much nicer, matches to the "linux-header" > package, and is certainly nice in the long run. > > Cheers, > > -- > René Rebe, ExactCODE GmbH, Jaegerstr. 67, DE-10117 Berlin > http://exactcode.com | http://t2-project.org | http://rene.rebe.de > >
----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [email protected] with a subject of: unsubscribe t2
