New package naming scheme

[Peter Robinson]

>>>> 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.

I avoiding bringing that up originally as I didn't want to get into a
discussion about the colour of the bike shed.

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

I would likely just do that, I've excluded kernels from my rawhide
updates for the moment as I suspect it'd take a few days to settle out

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

Since it's now being discussed I vote for modules*

Peter