On 06/24/2013 12:27 PM, Greg KH wrote:
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
Greg,
This sounds okay to me, but let's see what the lead says. You're best
suited to decide which versions to keep or toss, so as far as I'm
concerned, just do what you've been doing as I see from the ChangeLog.
There is, however, some disagreement about whether we should still
continue stabilizing vanilla-sources, but we can debate that on -dev.
--Tony
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197
