On 08/02/11 12:52, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Tom Gundersen<t...@jklm.no> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM, C Anthony Risinger<anth...@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.
