[aur-general] LTS kernel moved to 3.10.x - module rebuilds

Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomozov at gmail.com
Tue Sep 17 09:09:15 EDT 2013


On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Pedro Alejandro López-Valencia
<palopezv at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Brian F. G. Bidulock
> <bidulock at openss7.org> wrote:
>> If you look at https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html
>> you will see that 3.2.x is LTS with EOL 2016, whereas 3.10.x
>> is EOL Sept, 2015.  (Obviously 3.0.x is EOL Oct 2013, next
>> month, so some change is necessary.)
>> When we moved from 2.6.32 lts to 3.0 lts, it was because gcc header
>> files needed a minimum kernel above 2.6.34.  I was wondering whether
>> there was a similar technical reason for the 3.10.x choice over
>> 3.2.x, or whether I can just as easily run a 3.2.x kernel on an
>> otherwise Plain Jane and current Arch Linux build?
> Off the top of my head, the discussion in arch-dev-public went about
> two main points: 1:) Arch is a distribution that prides itself in
> being on the bleeding edge of technology. If there is a new LTS kernel
> since now and September 2015, be sure it will replace the present
> version unless there are apocalyptic reasons not to do it. 2.) The
> 3.10 kernel has much better hardware support and gives access to a lot
> of newer technology that LTS users might want to use.
> On my side, I can see a very important and beneficial side effect of
> using 3.10 as LTS kernel: It is very well integrated with systemd. In
> fact it has already part of the work that supports the new
> hirearchical cgroups world, therefore it will be more compatible with
> future systemd versions. Furthermore, the technological advance in
> file-systems, virtualization and graphics support from 3.2 to 3.10 is
> not something to ignore.
> Perhaps I ought to point out that a kernel.org LTS is a bug-fix only
> affair unless there is an obvious need to correct a glaring mistake,
> new features are not added lightly. That's not the case with vendor
> kernels. They choose to add the support and backport the features they
> want, that is: those kernels are Frankenstein monsters. A RHEL 5
> 2.6.17 kernel is really made out of the corpses of all kernels up to
> 3.8 at this time ---taking an educated guess--- and that is without
> taking into consideration all the out-of-tree additions that are not
> either in Torvald's nor linux-next trees.

I would suggest to rename linux-lts to linux-lts-3.2 and keep it in
the repo for a while. This is the way how Arch can keep old version of
the package.

So people who does not want to rush with kernel upgrade can use that
package. Later (in ~12 months) this package can be removed or moved to

More information about the aur-general mailing list