1 |
Thanasis <thanasis <at> asyr.hopto.org> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
> on 01/29/2014 03:36 PM James wrote the following: |
5 |
|
6 |
> > Once the newer kernel series come out, the newer versions |
7 |
> > of a series (usually) slow way down on being delivered. |
8 |
> Not necessarily, if some devs are maintaining a series as "long term", |
9 |
> which, I think, is the case for the 3.10.X series (if I am not wrong). |
10 |
|
11 |
Long term kernel series usually have one key guy (Cox historically) versus |
12 |
thousands of devs work on things for new/latest/upcoming kernel releases. I |
13 |
am a big fan of Alan Cox, as many of us are, and he is quite prolific |
14 |
to be sure, but what you are saying, makes you appear, ignorant |
15 |
of kernel development processes. I only use Alan Cox, as an example; |
16 |
I have no idea who the long-term kernel maintainer is now, but |
17 |
historically it's been somebody with a vested interest, or |
18 |
some poor-unappreciated sap....imho. |
19 |
|
20 |
The purpose of the long-term maintained kernels is in-fact and indeed, |
21 |
so that folks do not have to change kernels often. Those features that |
22 |
are fixed in a kernel series, are also "pulled-forward" into |
23 |
the newer kernels series. FEW have valid reasons not to upgrade to |
24 |
the newer series of stable kernels. It mu |
25 |
|
26 |
Sometimes folks have to stay with a kernel series, because a vendor |
27 |
binary patch forces them into this situation. In that case, the |
28 |
vendor supplied patch might not even work (compile) with newer kernels |
29 |
in a particular series. Commercial vendor support of a binary |
30 |
wedged into a linux kernel, is fraught with all sorts of issues |
31 |
quite often. Staying within a given kernel series is easier (mostly) |
32 |
for companies to maintain a binary patch, with a poorly qualified |
33 |
(learning?) noob kernel hacker, imho..... |
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
If you want further help, you have to precisely define "why" |
37 |
you need to stay in a particular kernel series, but yet |
38 |
you need to be notified, immediately, without expending |
39 |
some extra effort yourself? You seem to be in a place (a want meerely?) |
40 |
that the good-conservative folks associated with kernel responsibility, |
41 |
do not provide for, because not many people have a valid reason |
42 |
for such? |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
> > Maybe a wildcard with the kernel series name in your "world" |
46 |
> > file might work. |
47 |
> Yes, maybe. |
48 |
> And that's why am I asking. |
49 |
|
50 |
> > At some point, the long kernel series revisions are usually |
51 |
> > only about tweaking a few given features. |
52 |
|
53 |
> And bugs. |
54 |
|
55 |
(um "tweaks are another way of saying bug/feature fix/stabilization). |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
> My situation, is not so complicated hopefully :P |
59 |
|
60 |
Do tell the specifics.... As some who has files of thousands of kernel |
61 |
build notes and goes back into kernel sources, as far back as 2.0 |
62 |
series, mostly for embedded reasons: |
63 |
|
64 |
Dude, I'm scratching my head, wondering whats up with your need....... |
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
James |