[arch-general] [signoff] linux-3.0-2

[Isaac Dupree]

On 08/02/11 12:52, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tom Gundersen<teg at jklm.no>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger<anthony at xtfx.me>  wrote:
>>>
>>> ... out of curiosity, if the original reason for having a `kernel26`
>>> package was to also have a `kernel24` (from what i read -- wasn't
>>> around then) how is this handled with the `linux` package?  or is this
>>> a non-issue?
>>
>> We no longer support linux 2.4... How would this be an issue?
>
> sorry i wasn't clear -- i meant when the time comes that dual support
> would be desirable, eg. linux 4.7 or whatever :-)

kernel26-lts / linux-lts
(side note -- are we renaming that package now or later?)

That's our current dual kernel.

It's not difficult to add back version numbers if they become really 
necessary - it happens here and there (e.g. python - which was obviously 
much more complicated because it relates to hundreds of packages rather 
than one or two).  There might be some AUR packages with specific kernel 
versions - having the main package be 'linux' doesn't hurt that either.