| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: Kernel naming in apt
 Posted: Mar 29, 2008 - 04:47 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 23
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
Why are kernels now named 2.6.24-2.6.24.4.slh.2-sidux-686 in apt rather than just 2.6.24.4-slh-smp-2 as they used to be in the sidux repo? I think it looks kind of messy so I figured there must be a reason for the new naming scheme. If there isn't, can you change it back?  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Kernel naming in apt
Posted: Mar 29, 2008 - 05:04 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 28, 2006
Posts: 4199
Status: Offline
|
|
it follows more debian naming conventions, and actually does make sense if you break it down:
2.6.24 is the major version
2.6.24.4.slh.2 is the specific version
sidux it's a sidux kernel
686 the platform it is
These strings, by the way, while long, are actually very easy to work with, and are very predictable in their behavior. And since I never type them anyway, it's not a real problem.
The sid ones look like this;
linux-image-2.6.24-1-686
the extra 2.6.24 maybe was a bit of overkill, but it's fine once you get used to it. |
_________________
sidux Maintenance script: dist-upgrade, kernel install, general utilities: smxi
Backup script [using rdiff-backup]: rd-h2.sh
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Kernel naming in apt
Posted: Mar 29, 2008 - 05:46 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 29, 2007
Posts: 23
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Status: Offline
|
|
|
h2 wrote:
the extra 2.6.24 maybe was a bit of overkill
Yeah, that was my main point. I don't see the benefit of listing 2.6.24 twice. 2.6.24.4-2-slh-sidux-686 or 2.6.24.4-2-sidux-slh-686 would be better. Anyway, it's a fairly minor complaint in the whole scheme of things. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Kernel naming in apt
Posted: Mar 29, 2008 - 04:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 02, 2006
Posts: 1637
Location: Germany / NRW
Status: Offline
|
|
following h2's explanations, it would be (and nobody but slh knows why it's not):
2.6.24-4.slh.2-sidux-686
I would like that, too, but I'm afraid it will never come. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Kernel naming in apt
Posted: Mar 29, 2008 - 06:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 28, 2006
Posts: 4199
Status: Offline
|
|
well, speaking for myself, the naming is all handled in smxi, and I really hope it doesn't change again... it's too hard to keep up with core naming changes, this was by the way one of my many reasons to finally drop all active support for ati's fglrx driver installer, they kept renaming every other month, which forces pointless rewrites and logic corrections.
Once a naming convention is selected, that's it, the time to think about naming is BEFORE you release it, not after.
We had a lovely brain storming session to come up with smxi, for example, when the renaming was forced on it by the sm maintainer, and the results were great as far as I'm concerned.
Again, if you actually think of it, the slh thing does make sense, think of it as set theory:
2.6.24 is a member of the set of primary kernel versions, like 2.6.23,2.6.24, etc
each member of that set has a precise name, say 2.6.24.3.slh.12
All members of primary set are members of the sidux kernel set, which has either amd64 or 686 members.
I believe this was the logic, and since it makes sense and can be explained, it wasn't irrational in my opinion, although it was maybe overkill, but since the decision was made, and it works, and it's rational, changing it would just cause more pointless problems. |
_________________
sidux Maintenance script: dist-upgrade, kernel install, general utilities: smxi
Backup script [using rdiff-backup]: rd-h2.sh
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Kernel naming in apt
Posted: Mar 29, 2008 - 06:27 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 25, 2006
Posts: 2479
Status: Offline
|
|
| The naming is not guaranteed to persist (but has technical reasons to be the way it is, for now...), using the proper APIs the actual names do not matter and the metas will fetch the most current (stable) kernel. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Kernel naming in apt
Posted: Jun 20, 2008 - 02:37 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 04, 2006
Posts: 1182
Status: Offline
|
|
| I have to dig up this thread from the days of yore. I've come to wonder about the current naming scheme
Code:
2.6.25-4...
Does the "-4" imply this kernel is built from the 2.6.25.4 sources? I've never seen any 2.6.x.y kernel in the sidux repos, so the dash might simply be the sidux replacement for the period, right? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Kernel naming in apt
Posted: Jun 20, 2008 - 05:25 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 28, 2006
Posts: 4199
Status: Offline
|
|
| that's the debian default style, which made it a very good choice for naming for sidux, since sidux is a debian compatible distro. Yes, the -4 corresponds to 2.6.25.4, except if it's the first version, it's 2.6.25-0. |
_________________
sidux Maintenance script: dist-upgrade, kernel install, general utilities: smxi
Backup script [using rdiff-backup]: rd-h2.sh
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Kernel naming in apt
Posted: Jun 20, 2008 - 07:53 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 04, 2006
Posts: 1182
Status: Offline
|
|
| Wow. Never noticed that one. Maybe since all my debian experience is grounded on kanotix/sidux with their custom kernels (I hardly ever have to boot into my Testing installation) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
