New package naming scheme

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> 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.
>
> I avoiding bringing that up originally as I didn't want to get into a
> discussion about the colour of the bike shed.

... which causes a lot more work when the bike shed needs to be
repainted after the fact.  In the future, please don't worry about
bike shedding.  Nobody else does.

>> 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*

I actually meant to write "this is not out for a vote" because voting
isn't going to fix anything.  Anyway, -modules might be doable, but I
have another bug to fix first.

josh