Bug 33318 – Standard naming convention for kernel module packages (-kernel vs -driver)

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

[Description Tom von Schwerdtner 2003-11-12 11:45:57 UTC]

Currently there are mixed names for kernel module packages, for example:

media-sound/alsa-driver
media-video/nvidia-kernel
sys-apps/thinkpad

are all kernel modules.  It makes sense to name them all with a common convention, such as *-driver:

media-sound/alsa-driver
media-video/nvidia-driver
sys-apps/thinkpad-driver

*-module could also be used (I am opposed to *-kernel however, as I think it is confusing).

[Comment 1 Tim Yamin (RETIRED) 2003-11-12 13:32:14 UTC]

ALSA-driver is the actual project name / tarball release name, so we get less confusion by calling it that. NVIDIA-kernel is 'kernel' as opposed to 'driver' as drivers can include components like the GLX 'driver'. Which is another thing. Although I guess we can do something about thinkpad and change it to thinkpad-kernel as they are kernel modules? But I guess we will also make mass hysteria if we rename nvidia-kernel to nvidia-module?

[Comment 2 SpanKY 2003-11-12 14:23:00 UTC]

i think we should name packages the way the upstream has them

thus we would not change alsa or nvidia ...

[Comment 3 Brian Jackson (RETIRED) 2003-11-12 14:57:00 UTC]

In the past we've tried keeping the name changes to a minimum to avoid confusing packages, etc. I don't think there's a compelling reason to change that behavior now. 

[Comment 4 Martin Schlemmer (RETIRED) 2003-11-16 15:07:14 UTC]

I think we should have catagories more dedicated to kernel related stuff:

kernel-sources
kernel-drivers
kernel-utils

I have suggested this long ago, but it got past without notice.  Will
ease the search for drivers much more than appending -driver.

[Comment 5 Martin Schlemmer (RETIRED) 2003-11-16 15:07:54 UTC]

Maybe 'kernel-headers' as well, if we are going to have a few of those ...

[Comment 6 Jason Cox (RETIRED) 2004-04-08 20:38:27 UTC]

Are any changes going to be made under the portage tree concerning this? I think that we should stay as it is now. Changing the naming schemes away from the the way upstream has them would be more troublesome.

[Comment 7 Jeremy Huddleston (RETIRED) 2004-04-08 21:09:00 UTC]

my $0.02 is that it's not worth the time to do this... but that's just my thought.

[Comment 8 Jason Cox (RETIRED) 2004-04-09 07:56:18 UTC]

Agreed. The current method works anddoesn't break upstream naming conventions.