kernel naming

[Moritz Heiber]

nestu wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> On behalf of [specially] Moe and myself, I wanted to ask what you ppl 
> think about changing linux-* naming scheme. The point would be to easily 
> differenciate 2.4 K's from 2.6. We could keep the beta suffix for 2.6 
> and call it linux-2.6-beta [or -26] and linux-2.4 [or -24], for example. 
> Also, I could add a linux-26-stable, that has been requested before too. 
> Ideas, complaints, additions... yes, no, otherwise?...
> BTW, I know that the package is called linux, but personally [and I 
> highlight *personally* ] I would prefer to call it "kernel", e.g., 
> kernel-2.6, or kernel-2.4 and so on. To be true, this is more a thought, 
> not so much as a proposal, as the above. Just brainstorming, I suppose ]:-)
> Thanks for listening,
> Jaime ;)

Hi,

apart from the good idea to finally get out a stable 2.6 kernel 
module I'ld like to aim my discussion at the aliases we had been 
talking about month ago already.

As it would be good to name every kernel module after the scheme 
'linux-2.x(-beta)' (or even kernel-2.x(-beta)) we will have to 
rename the main kernel module 'linux'. I'ld like to make it an alias 
for our future kernel modules, having seperate kernel modules (f.e. 
linux-2.4 and linux-2.6) and one alias for the kernel itself 
('linux') pointing to them.

One might even think about having a seperate POST_INSTALL for the 
aliases as many commands run in the kernel modules' POST_INSTALLs 
are quite the same.

This, of course, requieres more work especially concerning the core 
implementation but to me it sounds reasonable, flexible and neat 
enough to take the time to do it.

Thanks for your time.
Regards,

Moritz

PS: I'm in for 'linux-2.x(-stable, -beta, -beta-mm, -grsec)' :-)