kernel naming & CREATED FIELD

[jean.bruenn at ip-minds.de]

Hello,

there are some problems with the naming of kernels within Lunar Linux. 
The 25th
October we've talked about having a "linux" and/or "linux-stable" / 
"linux-unstable"
modules to make it easier to handle kernels, their versions and to make 
it
easier for new people to choose the right kernel.

Let's see if we reached this goal. To do that my understanding:

linux          = Always the latest stable kernel (updates frequently) 
should
                  be 3.1.8 according to kernel.org)
linux-stable   = Very stable kernel (tested by more than one dev, not 
updated
                  very often, known to be really stable - should have a 
version
                  those more-than-one-dev's decided on - just like some
                  "long term support" given by us i.e. we're supporting 
that
                  kernel officially!)
linux-unstable = Latest available kernel (should be 3.2 or linux-next,
                  according to kernel.org where it is mainline)
linux-next     = Should be the linux-next kernel.

At least, that's my understanding. And that would make it simple for 
everyone.
People who want to drive the latest stuff will go for linux-next or 
linux-unstable.
People with productive environments where kernels shouldn't change very 
often
will use linux-stable. And people with desktop systems who want to keep 
up to
date without loosing stability will just run the default module - which 
is linux.

And what do we have now?

linux = 3.2 (should be 3.1.8)
linux-stable = 3.1.7 (should be some version which wouldn't change for 
a fixed
                amount of time - I'm sure someone will update it wrongly 
to
                3.1.8 soon)
linux-unstable = 3.2 (same as linux)

Isn't it obvious that something messy is going on here? Plus, please 
guys:
linux-stable wasn't made in 2004 so why do you use "ENTERED=20041019". 
I don't
think anyone is taking this stuff serious and that makes me sad.

Jean