From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: documentation@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: [Documentation] Kernel choice in IPFire 3.x
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:38:28 +0100
Message-ID: <1327077508.2165.67.camel@rice-oxley.tremer.info>
In-Reply-To: <53DE8637-6B13-46BF-BFC4-B5733EE7FD50@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4024340443740762017=="
List-Id: <documentation.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============4024340443740762017==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey,

I do not think that -rrf is quite intuitive.

 -Michael

P.S. Please subscribe to the list if you reply to mails. I won't approve
mails any longer.

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:22 +0100, Ben Schweikert wrote:
> What about Kernel-rrf? Reduced Range of functions?
> Ben
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Am 20.01.2012 um 17:13 schrieb Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>:
>=20
> > Hey,
> >=20
> > I think that is quite long, but actually when I was talking to Arne, he
> > came up with the following idea:
> >=20
> > Why name the PAE-kernel kernel-PAE when PAE is only one of the features
> > it comes with and is the default one. It would be much better to call if
> > the default kernel. Nothing else.
> >=20
> > That would imply that we need to rename the other version, which is a
> > bit hard to do, because I have not found a simply and cheesy name that
> > is to the point. Any suggestions?
> >=20
> > -Michael
> >=20
> > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 14:12 +0100, Daniel Weism=C3=BCller wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>=20
> >> Why you just name it "without-PAE"
> >>=20
> >> Daniel
> >>=20
> >> Am 19.01.2012 12:46, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> >>> Hey Daniel,
> >>>=20
> >>> thank you for your reply.
> >>>=20
> >>> Do you have any suggestion for the name of the "default" kernel?
> >>>=20
> >>> I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by "default" on any
> >>> i686 box. But there may be better names around.
> >>>=20
> >>> Michael
> >>>=20
> >>> P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well, because they have not
> >>> subscribed to this list.
> >>>=20
> >>> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weism=C3=BCller wrote:
> >>>> Hi!
> >>>> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand why it is necessary
> >>>> to use different kernels.
> >>>>=20
> >>>> Only one point. In my opinion it is a bad choice to name the "i686
> >>>> non-pae kernel" "default kernel" because it isn't our default kernel f=
or
> >>>> the i686 architecture.
> >>>>=20
> >>>> Daniel
> >>>>=20
> >>>> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> >>>>> Hello you 2,
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> I would like you to review the documentation I have written about the
> >>>>> kernel choice in IPFire 3.x at http://wiki.ipfire.org/devel/kernels.
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> We should just briefly write down why we decided to do things in this
> >>>>> way and I want to make sure that I did not get anything wrong or miss=
ed
> >>>>> an important reason.
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>>   -Michael
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
> >>>>>=20
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Documentation mailing list
> >>>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> >>>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Documentation mailing list
> >>>> Documentation(a)lists.ipfire.org
> >>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> >=20


--===============4024340443740762017==--