Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev List <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development'
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:54:05
Message-Id: 20040827205359.GB9006@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development' by William Kenworthy
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] development-sources are not 'development' Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o>