On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 08:45:25AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:42:44 -0700 > Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 02:45:16AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:13:03 -0700 > > > Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Great! But as only the latest version released is "stable", > > > > that's all that should stick around, right? > > > > > > Tricky decision to make. Do we really want to force people's kernel > > > sources to unmerge every single time you push a new version? Which > > > on its own turn, forces them to build and install the new kernel. > > > > If they are following the vanilla kernels, isn't that what people > > expect? The latest stable-kernel-of-the-week, as that's what I'm > > releasing. They don't have to do an update if they don't want to :) > > If we don't keep around other ebuilds their sources will unexpectedly > unmerge upon a dependency clean; they can only stop it if they see it > in the list of packages that will be unmerged, and do something to > specifically keep them.
True, so we can keep around 3-4 older ebuilds if needed, per kernel release. But who really does a dependency clean these days, I've never done one :) So, what's the next step? Should I announce the change to -dev? Anyone else really object to it? Other thoughts? thanks, greg k-h
