FS#24524 - [kernel26] New kernel version numbering scheme (2.6 to 3.0)

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Tomas Mudrunka (harvie) - Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 20:06 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 03 June 2011, 04:02 GMT
Task Type General Gripe
Category Kernel
Status Closed
Assigned To Tobias Powalowski (tpowa)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Low
Reported Version 2010.05
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 2
Private No

Details

As Linus decided to change the kernel version numbering scheme, we should think about this.
This is very controverse and tricky.

1.) package name kernel26 will not make sense shortly (btw currently there is no kernel24 and no kernel3 package - even in AUR, so i don't think that we need to include kernel version into the package name).

in fact archlinux is not even compatible with linux 2.4 (or 2.5)

I think that this package SHOULD NOT contain version, so it should be like eg.: "kernel"

2.) shoud this package be really called "kernel"?

We have packages like

core/linux-api-headers
core/linux-firmware

so why kernel is not just "linux"

3.) so i think that we should choose between these three pkgnames for kernel 3.0:

- linux
- linux-kernel
- kernel :(
This task depends upon

Closed by  Allan McRae (Allan)
Friday, 03 June 2011, 04:02 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Comment by Tomas Mudrunka (harvie) - Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 20:07 GMT
BTW note that actual name of software currently contained in package "kernel26" is "Linux" or maybe "Linux Kernel", but not "Kernel" ("Kernel" can be something else)...
Comment by Rémy Oudompheng (remyoudompheng) - Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 20:19 GMT
Why is this reported as a bug at all? We have plenty of packages whose name contain a version number, like gtk2, qt3, python2, glib2, and people don't seem to complain about that.
Comment by jwbirdsong (jwbirdsong) - Tuesday, 31 May 2011, 20:21 GMT
Much discussion on this already taken place. see thread STARTING http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2011-May/020123.html
Comment by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 06:48 GMT
@Thomas, i think you are too new to know why the package was named kernel26. That is a historically name from the time when in repos existed both, kernel24 as default.

Fast forwarding to current, i think "linux" as a package name is perfect but replacing packaging is darn hard mostly because pacman loses the track of the backup entries.
Comment by Jelle van der Waa (jelly) - Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 11:15 GMT
ioni is right about the kerne26/kernel24 story
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Wednesday, 01 June 2011, 13:51 GMT
Pacman shouldn't lose track of backup entries, Ionut, as long as you do the upgrade in one go. If it does, please report the bug that you're seeing so we can fix it.

Regardless, wow, this is a silly bug report that we would take care of anyway without bikeshedding once it is even relevant to us...

Loading...