| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 08:45:25AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:42:44 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Greg KH <greg@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 02:45:16AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:13:03 -0700 |
| 7 |
> > > Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > > Great! But as only the latest version released is "stable", |
| 10 |
> > > > that's all that should stick around, right? |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > Tricky decision to make. Do we really want to force people's kernel |
| 13 |
> > > sources to unmerge every single time you push a new version? Which |
| 14 |
> > > on its own turn, forces them to build and install the new kernel. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > If they are following the vanilla kernels, isn't that what people |
| 17 |
> > expect? The latest stable-kernel-of-the-week, as that's what I'm |
| 18 |
> > releasing. They don't have to do an update if they don't want to :) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If we don't keep around other ebuilds their sources will unexpectedly |
| 21 |
> unmerge upon a dependency clean; they can only stop it if they see it |
| 22 |
> in the list of packages that will be unmerged, and do something to |
| 23 |
> specifically keep them. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
True, so we can keep around 3-4 older ebuilds if needed, per kernel |
| 26 |
release. But who really does a dependency clean these days, I've never |
| 27 |
done one :) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
So, what's the next step? Should I announce the change to -dev? Anyone |
| 30 |
else really object to it? Other thoughts? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
thanks, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
greg k-h |
Archives