On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:27:10AM -0700, 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 >
Are we agreed on a few facts? 1. Upstream release rate is now a much higher 1-2 kernels a week. 2. Very frequently, these releases contain security fixes. 3. This rate of release puts arch teams in a difficult position, since it is unsustainable to try to keep up tp date with stabilization 4. By continuing the policy of providing a stable kernel version, Gentoo is giving a false sense of security to its users, since by the time the kernel does get stabilized, a newer version more with more security fixes is almost always already released. Auto stabling keywords again will give that false impression of Gentoo QA on a particular arch, so I don't think I would want that. A downside is that a kernel could be released that wont build on an arch. Does that imply failure of our QA process? Or is it acceptable, as a fix almost always follows right after that kind of situation. -- Mike Pagano Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project Gentoo Sources - Lead E-Mail : [email protected] GnuPG FP : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C 9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3 Public Key : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xB576E4E3&op=index
