| 1 |
A users perspective about vanilla-kernel, but why not just mirror whats |
| 2 |
available on kernel.org. keep it simple with the versions they offer there, |
| 3 |
with their longterm stable and slowly remove their EOL, maybe give a |
| 4 |
warning there till its gone from kernel and then make it gone from the tree. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Greg KH wrote: |
| 10 |
> > True, so we can keep around 3-4 older ebuilds if needed, per kernel |
| 11 |
> > release. But who really does a dependency clean these days, I've never |
| 12 |
> > done one :) So, what's the next step? Should I announce the change to |
| 13 |
> > -dev? Anyone else really object to it? Other thoughts? thanks, greg k-h |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If you are referring to --depclean, I do that pretty regular here. I |
| 16 |
> see it being recommended on -user and forums and have even seen it after |
| 17 |
> a emerge more than once. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If you are referring to something else, disregard. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Dale |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> :-) :-) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> -- |
| 26 |
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or |
| 27 |
> how you interpreted my words! |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
Archives