The Chakra Project - Forums / [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (Inkane) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:38:05 +0000

To be fair: 2.6.32 will still be maintained by Willie Tarreau.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (agapito) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:29:32 +0000

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n … px=MTA2NjI

Definitely ugrade to 3.0 was a good move.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (philm) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:18:12 +0000

Some about longterm supported kernels:

http://www.cnx-software.com/2011/10/27/ … ectronics/
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/longterm … -2011.html
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/stable-s … -2012.html

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (takemori) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:01:19 +0000

I can't really vote on this because I don't use the lts kernel, so it doesn't affect me, but I was under the impression that 3.0+ got rid of support for certain older computers. If I were to own such a computer, I'd want to be able to use chakra since the newest kde stuff runs much faster with each iteration. So if I were to vote, i'd keep the old 2.6.xxx kernel.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (agapito) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:52:13 +0000

I know, but Kernel-lts should be an exception because every 3.0.xx update should be safe . If we freeze kernel-lts in repos, why is called long term support? It's just an old kernel.

I remember the actual kernel-lts being updated at every 2.6.35.xx release.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (manutortosa) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:18:50 +0000

Obviously our half/rolling release cycle does not allow to flag as outdated packages in CORE and/or PLATFORM as they are sometimes outdated bcause we decided to keep the version more time. These 2 repos are not rolling so the packages cannot be flagged as outdated.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (agapito) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:55:03 +0000

Good news. I'm using it now.

I suggest to add the "flag as outdated" button to the kernel-lts webpage.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (philm) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:20:36 +0000

All related packages got updated in [testing]

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (agapito) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:45:23 +0000

LTS = Long Term Support

Right now 2.6.35 does not recieve any security or bugfixes from upstream since august, so is not long time supported is basically a kernel dead and dangerous. The oldest kernel receiving updates is 2.6.27 (Debian Old Stable) and 2.6.32 (Debian Stable)

My proposal is update lts kernel to 3.0 series now, until it disappears from kernel.org webpage, then increase kernel version again.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (manutortosa) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:57:20 +0000

That's not a good approach imho, a LTS kernel means LONG support during many years, and dropping it does not make sense at all.

To me, the LTS kernel should be keep as it is, if does not get new updates at least 2-3 years more, and then, start a new LTS cicle with a selected kernel (can be 3.0 or something else) during at least 4 years. A long period support means this, some years, not some months.

In this poll i miss the option "KEEP IT AS IT IS NOW", right now we are not giving this choice at all so my question is

How do we expect to know if the users need or want the current LTS kernel?

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (dryfit) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:20:50 +0000

I vote to upgrade. But hope the new LTS will support my problem i have atm till the newest kernel version solves my 5.1 sound problem.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (Malcer) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:31:06 +0000

I know that Linux LTS 2.6.35 is "old fashioned" but, in my case is, at the moment, the only kernel that works fine in my laptop.

I think the actual LTS kernel should be maintained in the repos for the people like me, that needs more stability and no problems with this (much production or servers, for example).

Maybe this kernel should be named with other nomenclature? Yes, why not?

Is my opinion. If kernel 2.6.35 series is changed to 3.0, I have todo a hold in the kernel or download the binary and create a local repo. :S

Greetings!

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (philm) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:51:49 +0000

We kept X on an older version cos of catalyst and nvidia-legacy. This might all change in 2013 when wayland hit the market for real. The lts-kernel is always older as the current stable kernel. More tested. Andi just don't maintain 2.6.35 anymore. So Greg's 3.0 is the best version we can go with ... Will be supported for 2 years btw.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (Alejandro Nova) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:46:40 +0000

3.0. AMD Catalyst does not like an updated kernel and X release, and they basically try to sync with Ubuntu, instead of supporting every new X and kernel release, like NVIDIA does. So, as long as there is Catalyst, there will be a need for an LTS kernel.

I also agree on the idea of an 1-year cadence to upgrade kernel-lts to the release recommended by the LTS upstream maintainers.

Re: [kernel] dropping linux-lts ?!?

dummy@example.com (agapito) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:18:42 +0000

3.0 should be the new lts kernel, NOW!