[arch-general] core/linux provides kernel*26*, not kernel4
Why https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/linux/ package provides kernel26 while current version is 4? Is it a mistake or 26 means something else? Roman
On Sun, 03 May 2015 12:52:36 +0000 Roman Rader <antigluk@gmail.com> wrote:
Why https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/linux/ package provides kernel26 while current version is 4? Is it a mistake or 26 means something else?
Roman
kernel26 = kernel 2.6. It's left over from when the package was named differently.
2015-05-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info>:
It's left over from when the package was named differently.
So they serve no purpose anymore, right? I have opened a bug report asking for them to be removed: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/44826 Thanks, Sebastiaan
On Sun, 3 May 2015 18:15:54 +0200 Sebastiaan Lokhorst <sebastiaanlokhorst@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-05-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info>:
It's left over from when the package was named differently.
So they serve no purpose anymore, right?
I have opened a bug report asking for them to be removed: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/44826
Thanks Sebastiaan
The only purpose they would serve would be someone running extremely out of date packages or trying to upgrade an extremely out of date system. Of course, they also don't hurt anything. Doug
2015-05-03 18:29 GMT+02:00 Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info>:
The only purpose they would serve would be someone running extremely out of date packages or trying to upgrade an extremely out of date system.
I don't think a system running a 2.6 kernel would be salvageable anyway. The many filesystem, systemd, etc upgrades would make this a horrible job. ;) 2015-05-03 18:29 GMT+02:00 Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info>:
Of course, they also don't hurt anything.
That's also true, but we like to Keep It Simple, right. ;) (although this might be a bit overly obsessive) Sebastiaan
participants (3)
-
Doug Newgard
-
Roman Rader
-
Sebastiaan Lokhorst