New package naming scheme

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Em 01-05-2014 00:14, Chuck Anderson escreveu:
>
>> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 05:04:05AM +0200, poma wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a discrepancy in the terminology of these two packages:
>>> - kernel-drivers[1]
>>> - kernel-modules-extra
>>>
>>> Are these[1] modules passed the driving test?
>>> Should I read the "Banana Split" thread, again?
>>> Perhaps the "kernel-modules" for the "kernel-drivers" is the proper name.
>>
>>
>> I should have brought that up when the split was first proposed, but I
>> agree and I do not like this inconsistency.  The new one should be
>> called kernel-modules, or the old kernel-modules-extra should be
>> renamed kernel-drivers-extra.

Right.  This kind of thing is why I let it sit for review for over a
month.  Now it's live in Rawhide and doing a rename means you have to
get all the Provides/Obsoletes in place to kill off the old subpackage
name.  In other words, it's a PITA.

Or, I may just do the rename and people that have the existing
subpackage installed can deal with it manually.

> I vote for kernel-modules and kernel-modules-extra, as not all modules are
> drivers.

This is out for a vote.

josh