[arch-general] introducing kernel26-lts

[David C. Rankin]

On Wednesday 26 August 2009 10:53:56 am Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 18:29, Aaron Griffin<aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I half-way agree. The issue is that, no matter what you _intend_ with
> > something, people will always do something you don't expect. It's part
> > of the reason you see warnings like "Do not put in nose" on a package
> > for an electric toothbrush :)
> >
> > We _may_ have to maintain the out-of-tree network drivers, at the very
> > least, but I don't know if nvidia is worth it. Perhaps someone will
> > begin making a side repo with additional LTS modules (*hint* *hint*)
> 
> I think someone will make packages for drivers in AUR.
> There are lots of driver packages for user-made kernels,
> so driver packages for official kernel will surely appear in AUR.
> 

Oh,

	I didn't mean to start a fire-storm. But for any of the kernels I have loaded 
on my boxes, I usually try to get X setup so if I have to do any lengthy file 
management, editing, etc. from the console, then I have the convenience of 
graphical interface should I need or want something that isn't provided in 
text mode. 

	For the lts kernel, I agree, if the nvidia driver is a whole lot of work to 
prepare and maintain for the lts kernel, then it's not worth it. But, on the 
other hand, if it is fairly easy to put together a nvidia-lts package, then it 
might be something to consider.

	If the nvidia driver is too much of a pain to maintain, the how about the nv 
driver. That way all you would have to do is modify your xorg.conf and change 
"nvidia" to "nv" and restart X if you wanted a gui on the lts kernel. Either 
the radeon or radeonhd drivers would work fine for the other side of the 
house.

	The only reason I go to the trouble of getting X setup on the server boxes is 
that there are just some things that are easier done in X than from the 
console. I'm fine with vim, lynx, mc, etc... like them in fact and prefer them 
over their gui counterparts for a bunch of things.

	The intent here is *not* a complaint against lts at all.  The lack of 
graphics driver capability on the lts kernel is fine (now that I understand 
its scope) and I agree there is no reason to rename "lts" to "server" -- I 
kind of like lts anyway. What led to this was Andreas request that the lts 
kernel be tested. Which is what I was doing -- I just go about testing in 
whacky ways....

	All of this is just food for thought. As far as the feedback Andreas probably 
expected -- so far, the lts kernel works fine on my msi k9n2 box w/phenom 
processor. Apache2, bind, php5.3, ssl, etc.. all seem fine with the kernel.

( Next - I'll go see if I can get virtualbox to work on it and report back )
((ducking....))

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com