[arch-dev-public] [HEADSUP] Minimum kernel version bump

[Dan McGee]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Andreas Radke <andyrtr at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> Will there be a udev-compat pkg allowing to keep .32 lts?
>
> The udev-compat package has contained a few extra rules files that
> allowed old kernels to keep working. It looks like this will no longer
> be enough as of the next release (there has been no update to the
> compat rules), though I don't know exactly what caused the required
> version bump.
>
> In other words, things might continue to work, but we'll be on our own.
Along with every other distro trying to package an advertised-as-stable kernel.

> It might be worth noting that what we are doing (old kernels on new
> user-space) is not really supported/tested upstream and the README
> says "The upstream udev project's set of default rules may require a
> most recent kernel release to work properly.".
"Upstream" seems to be more and more the whims of two developers that
think they've come up with the best thing since sliced bread, no?

>> I'd like to update our LTS kernel to a more recent version but so far
>> Grek hasn't announced any late kernel release to become long term
>> supported. So there's no real option to update it for now. LTS-2.6.32
>> is still the best supported long term kernel upstream.
>
> That's a bit annoying. Any idea when a new LTS kernel would be out? I
> don't really know what to suggest. What exactly is the use-case for
> our LTS kernel?
Why the hell are we even having to worry about this stuff downstream?
This is super frustrating that upstream kernel developers can't even
push back on the udev and systemd folk for this crap.

The whole idea of an LTS kernel is fairly clear from the name- "long
term support". If these projects are getting so damn lazy they can't
even support an upstream kernel, it is pretty absurd in my opinion.

</rant>

I've realized I didn't say much productive, but I don't have time to
fight this battle, nor do I even really use the LTS kernel. However,
this whole darn thing just seems troublesome, and I'm a tad surprised
we are the only ones unhappy about this, if that is even the case. Is
there no push back occurring on these mailing lists?

-Dan