kernel naming (finally a reply from sofar)

[Auke Kok]

bla bla,

along the lines I read:

> I'm for linux-2.x-kernel (-beta, -grsec, -vanilla, etc).

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

... kernel-2.x-etc was also suggested

... xxxx-2x-xxx was also suggested


first conclusion is that most active devs would *seriously* appreciate name clarity. We're
even seeing this from older devs which shows it's not newer devs trying to clean up. That's
good and should be encouraged ;^)

second conclusion is that nobody really chooses '24/26' over '2.4/2.6'. I think that is
more clean to the novice and we should not abbreviate the version number that shortly. After all
we do have a 2.4.24 and 2.5.26 and that might be confusing.

third, and this is my personal input, is that we should name it 'linux-2.x(-ext)' and not
kernel, to *stay* in the same line as the way kernel.org names their tarball releases. This is
the major connection point for new lunar users.

to solve any problems we should choose from these 2 options remaining:

1) have a default 'linux' kernel that points to 'linux-2.4' or 'linux-2.6'

or

2) make 'lunar' a dummy module that tells the user to choose a kernel and show a list of 
possible kernels (and then exits).


more food for thought:

* drop -stable but keep -vanilla (for unpatched kernels!) as the default 2.x kernel will *always*
be stable


results in the ultimate list:

linux-2.4
linux-2.4-vanilla
linux-2.4-grsec
linux-2.4-ac
linux-2.4-om

linux-2.6
linux-2.6-vanilla
linux-2.6-grsec
linux-2.6-mm
linux-2.6-om

comments?

migration should be done meticuously and with lots of testing, especially since it will mean kernels
will be removed from peoples boxes... no threats but I can bitch ;^)

if this gets worked out properly I'm all for it

sofar