Hi On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Pedro Alejandro López-Valencia <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If you look at https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html >> you will see that 3.2.x is LTS with EOL 2016, whereas 3.10.x >> is EOL Sept, 2015. (Obviously 3.0.x is EOL Oct 2013, next >> month, so some change is necessary.) > >> When we moved from 2.6.32 lts to 3.0 lts, it was because gcc header >> files needed a minimum kernel above 2.6.34. I was wondering whether >> there was a similar technical reason for the 3.10.x choice over >> 3.2.x, or whether I can just as easily run a 3.2.x kernel on an >> otherwise Plain Jane and current Arch Linux build? > > Off the top of my head, the discussion in arch-dev-public went about > two main points: 1:) Arch is a distribution that prides itself in > being on the bleeding edge of technology. If there is a new LTS kernel > since now and September 2015, be sure it will replace the present > version unless there are apocalyptic reasons not to do it. 2.) The > 3.10 kernel has much better hardware support and gives access to a lot > of newer technology that LTS users might want to use. > > On my side, I can see a very important and beneficial side effect of > using 3.10 as LTS kernel: It is very well integrated with systemd. In > fact it has already part of the work that supports the new > hirearchical cgroups world, therefore it will be more compatible with > future systemd versions. Furthermore, the technological advance in > file-systems, virtualization and graphics support from 3.2 to 3.10 is > not something to ignore. > > Perhaps I ought to point out that a kernel.org LTS is a bug-fix only > affair unless there is an obvious need to correct a glaring mistake, > new features are not added lightly. That's not the case with vendor > kernels. They choose to add the support and backport the features they > want, that is: those kernels are Frankenstein monsters. A RHEL 5 > 2.6.17 kernel is really made out of the corpses of all kernels up to > 3.8 at this time ---taking an educated guess--- and that is without > taking into consideration all the out-of-tree additions that are not > either in Torvald's nor linux-next trees.
I would suggest to rename linux-lts to linux-lts-3.2 and keep it in the repo for a while. This is the way how Arch can keep old version of the package. So people who does not want to rush with kernel upgrade can use that package. Later (in ~12 months) this package can be removed or moved to AUR.
