"Kernel.org doesn't have 4.11 or 4.12 those are EOL. That's good reason for those 2." Yes then they will be dropped sooner or later. It doesn't mean we have to drop them as soon they are gone from kernel.org. I tend to keep them around for a while.
"2.02beta isn't even in portage anymore. They have 2.02 stable. We should at least use packages that exist in portage." A valid arguement to move to a newer version. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Jerrod Frost <[email protected]> wrote: > Kernel.org doesn't have 4.11 or 4.12 those are EOL. That's good reason for > those 2. > > 2.02beta isn't even in portage anymore. They have 2.02 stable. We should > at least use packages that exist in portage. There are also > changes/bugfixes(GCC, EFI, VMs, etc) between 2.02beta3 (Feb 2016) and > 2.02(April 2017) stable considering it was released little over a year > later. > > https://fossies.org/linux/grub/ChangeLog > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017, 6:14 AM Joost Ruis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "We are still using grub2.02-beta3. Can we please upgrade to the stable >> 2.02?" >> No, without any motivaton why, we are not going to replace something that >> isn't broken. >> >> "Once 4.14 is the status quo release, how do we feel about dropping >> 4.11. 4.12 and 4.13 kernels from the repository?" >> >> Again, why should we? I only drop kernels that are EOL. >> >> I did propose to only ship LTS kernels on our iso images. But that is a >> different discussion. >> >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Daniél Lecoq <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't see any point in dropping kernels from the repository, unless >>> we're running out of space. There is always some peripheral device that >>> worked better with the "previous kernel". >>> >>> On 2017-11-20 03:09, Jerrod Frost wrote: >>> >>> We are still using grub2.02-beta3. Can we please upgrade to the stable >>> 2.02? >>> >>> Once 4.14 is the status quo release, how do we feel about dropping 4.11. >>> 4.12 and 4.13 kernels from the repository? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
