FS#24448 - [kernel26] Shoud just be named "kernel"?

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Mitchell Richters (mjr4077au) - Thursday, 26 May 2011, 03:00 GMT
Last edited by Andrea Scarpino (BaSh) - Thursday, 26 May 2011, 18:38 GMT
Task Type General Gripe
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:

With the kernel package, since Arch is a rolling release, why does the package name contain the kernel version and the major revision number? Shouldn't it just be "kernel"?


Additional info:
* package version(s)
* config and/or log files etc.


Steps to reproduce:
This task depends upon

Closed by  Andrea Scarpino (BaSh)
Thursday, 26 May 2011, 18:38 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Additional comments about closing:  please continue the discussion in the ML
Comment by Pierre Schmitz (Pierre) - Thursday, 26 May 2011, 07:18 GMT
* This name was introduced when we had both: 2.4 and 2.6
* The correct name is actually linux and not kernel

Comment by Mitchell Richters (mjr4077au) - Thursday, 26 May 2011, 09:53 GMT
Ahh ok, that would make sense. Sadly, I wasn't using linux back in 2003 :(

Should it be renamed to "linux" then? I agree that's its actual name. Or will it stay as it is, pending "Linux 3.0"?
Comment by Karol Błażewicz (karol) - Thursday, 26 May 2011, 15:53 GMT
Just for the record, the ML discussion: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2011-May/020123.html

Loading...