1 |
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 06:14:09AM +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: |
2 |
> Why not call a spade a spade? As a user I think *kernel* version |
3 |
> numbers are good - you know exactly what you are getting. I do agree |
4 |
> that in general, using incremental version numbers is bad, but Kernels |
5 |
> are a special case. What happens when we get to 2.8? |
6 |
|
7 |
I can't agree more. Whereas some users don't want to know anything about |
8 |
these versions, most users do. Having the "vanilla" sources called to their |
9 |
major/minor will make it very clear what kernel they are dealing with. |
10 |
|
11 |
I can't propose a good naming convention; using separate profiles looks to |
12 |
have some drawbacks (such as dualbooting different maj/min-trees), using |
13 |
comparison operations is probably not userfriendly enough. |
14 |
|
15 |
But I do agree that having foo-sources and foo-dev-sources to distinct |
16 |
between 2.4 and 2.6 isn't enforceable in the future. |
17 |
|
18 |
Wkr, |
19 |
Sven Vermeulen |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
^__^ And Larry saw that it was Good. |
23 |
(oo) Sven Vermeulen |
24 |
(__) http://www.gentoo.org Documentation & PR |