New package naming scheme

[poma]

On 01.05.2014 15:38, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 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

If "this is not out for a vote" then 
  I do not vote for the "drivers"!
Haha.


poma