FS#17655 - kernel-headers and kernel26-headers too similar name

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by solsTiCe (zebul666) - Wednesday, 30 December 2009, 11:35 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Sunday, 24 January 2010, 02:14 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Tobias Powalowski (tpowa)
Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Thomas Bächler (brain0)
Allan McRae (Allan)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 7
Private No

Details

We now have 2 packages with almost the same name, and it is quite confusing: kernel-headers and kernel26-headers.

I propose to
1. merge them, but this might not be a good idea. because, if i understand correctly, they are NOT the same kind of headers
2. rename one of them, or the 2 ?
3. remerge kernel26-headers with kernel26 !

In fact, i don't understand the split. Is this a misuse (or abuse ?) of split package feature, isn't it ?
Are we going the debian way with -dev ,- include, -wtf package ?
This task depends upon

Closed by  Allan McRae (Allan)
Sunday, 24 January 2010, 02:14 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  linux-api-headers-2.6.32.5-1 in [testing]
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Wednesday, 30 December 2009, 12:36 GMT
My first thought when i read about kernel26-headers was why not provide a full kernel source package?
kernel26-source sounds much less confusing
Comment by Thomas Bächler (brain0) - Wednesday, 30 December 2009, 16:50 GMT
The main reason for the split in kernel26 was to make the PKGBUILD more readable and to avoid some confusion - some people thought we shipped the full kernel source in the package, which makes no sense (sources are only delivered when dealing with PKGBUILDs, not in packages). Now, the pkgdesc is pretty explicit about the package's purpose.

The name "kernel-headers" however is and always was wrong. It is the successor of the deprecated "linux-libc-headers" package and has nothing to do with the kernel.

I still wonder why people actually care.
Comment by Aaron Hurt (leprechau) - Thursday, 31 December 2009, 17:15 GMT
I believe that people caring is a pretty good thing....if nobody in the community cared archlinux would be a pretty shitty distro. In fact I would argue that the amount of caring about the internals of archlinux among the community is one of the things that separates archlinux from many of the other distros with a much less technically inclined user-base.

I too think the naming is confusing and as you pointed out "kernel-headers" is obviously wrong so why can we not change that to something more appropriate now that there is a semi conflicting package name that is actually correctly named.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Monday, 04 January 2010, 08:11 GMT
I could rename kernel-headers to linux-api-headers (which is the most correct name I can think of). But they are only named as wrong as the kernel package itself. If we are making things named correctly, why do we not rename kernel26 to "linux" at the same time. Then we would once again run into naming issues with the different headers...

My favoured solution is to re-merge the headers in the kernel26 packages. Then again, I have a long standing hatred towards split headers so may be slightly biased! :P
Comment by Thomas Bächler (brain0) - Monday, 04 January 2010, 10:16 GMT
I am always against renaming packages, because it brings weird problems with it. For example, the kernel contains backup=() files, when you replace the package, those are moved to .pacsave and defaults are restored.

About re-merging them: The headers are 27MB, so I think we have a strong reason for splitting them. Also the PKGBUILD is now so much more readable, and people stop thinking there is a kernel source in /usr/src/linux-2.6.32-ARCH. Three pros against the single con that people hate splitting stuff away.

Loading...