On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:39:49 +0200
Andreas Radke <a.radke(a)arcor.de> wrote:
> Morning guys.
> There's a discussion on the public dev list about my kernel26-lts. I'd
> like to see it on the next iso snapshot release.
> We still have to decide to what repo it should go. It's right now in
> testing and moving to core and extra is both an option.
> Now to you guys: please make a statement how you can imagine a kernel
> choice for the iso (include it to the disc, download it from extra....)
> and if the choice of repo would affect the iso creation and what your
> opinion is.
> Please post to the list. It's up again and running.
Sure. As long as it is maintained well and causes no problems/confusion with all the modules we ship and stuff (see discussion arch-dev-public), I'ld love to see this in core.
I think it would just "belong" there.
Any estimate on the size? i see that normal kernel packages are +- 33 MB. I heard that if we want to do multi-arch iso's (we do) we're pretty close to the limit of our current approach.
But then again, we should be able to play with compression algo's and parameters for the squashfs.
If the package is not in core, the user will always need to download it if he wants it which seems a drawback to me.
On media that come with packages, we only put core. (because hey, core is the only thing you need to get a system up and running)
The way i see this is not treating it specially: the user has a list of base packages which he can customize. if he wants the lts kernel he has to disable the normal one and enable the lts one.
maybe, just maybe we make an extra dialog "which kernel do you want", but these are just UI details.