2012/1/21 Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>

I think I got it:

What do you think about "-legacy"? A good German translation would be
"Altlast" and that's exactly what it is without sounding too bad.

If we would call it "-outdated" or "-unsecure", nobody would want to
install it and I think a legacy kernel is not too bad.

-Michael

On Fri, 2012-01-20 at 17:38 +0100, Michael Tremer wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 20.01.2012 um 17:13 schrieb Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>:
> >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > I think that is quite long, but actually when I was talking to Arne, he
> > > came up with the following idea:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > -Michael
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 14:12 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> Why you just name it "without-PAE"
> > >>
> > >> Daniel
> > >>
> > >> Am 19.01.2012 12:46, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> > >>> Hey Daniel,
> > >>>
> > >>> thank you for your reply.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you have any suggestion for the name of the "default" kernel?
> > >>>
> > >>> I think it is not that bad because that kernel runs by "default" on any
> > >>> i686 box. But there may be better names around.
> > >>>
> > >>> Michael
> > >>>
> > >>> P.S. Make sure you reply to Arne and Ben as well, because they have not
> > >>> subscribed to this list.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 08:32 +0100, Daniel Weismüller wrote:
> > >>>> Hi!
> > >>>> Good work at all. I think it is easy to understand why it is necessary
> > >>>> to use different kernels.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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 for
> > >>>> the i686 architecture.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Daniel
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Am 18.01.2012 23:12, schrieb Michael Tremer:
> > >>>>> Hello you 2,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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 missed
> > >>>>> an important reason.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Michael
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> P.S. Please make sure to reply to the list as well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> Documentation mailing list
> > >>>>> Documentation@lists.ipfire.org
> > >>>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Documentation mailing list
> > >>>> Documentation@lists.ipfire.org
> > >>>> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Documentation mailing list
> Documentation@lists.ipfire.org
> http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation

_______________________________________________
Documentation mailing list
Documentation@lists.ipfire.org
http://lists.ipfire.org/mailman/listinfo/documentation