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