On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Phil Perry wrote:
On 10/10/12 23:30, Trevor Hemsley wrote:
I'd suggest kernel30 rather than kernel-lt since the long term in this
case is not that long and soon we'll be trying to work out how to change
kernel-lt-3.0-x to kernel-lt-3.8.x or whatever the next LTS kernel
happens to be.
Unless the desired action is to update to the latest LTS kernel at that
point? At which time a user can add an exclude for kernel-lt if they want to
stay at an unsupported 3.0.y.
But I take your point. What do others think?
I am not in favor of renaming the packages to kernel-lts (or anything but
kernel-ml). For all practical purposes, sticking to one name, but offering
(sub)repositories for the different versions offers everything.
So I would propose this:
kernel-ml/
kernel-ml/repodata/
kernel-ml/3.0/
kernel-ml/3.0/repodata/
kernel-ml/3.8/
kernel-ml/3.8/repodata/
You can select the specific version you want to hook into, either the
parent directory if you prefer to stick with the latest, or one of the
major version repositories.
If you have different names for different releases (or even just the
ml/lts split) it becomes harder for the user to understand how this
affects the system.
Besides, we do not influence when a release becomes stable, and when it
not longer is updated. So keeping all under the generic 'mainline' brand
is much clearer.
Is there a need for the proposed complexity ?
--
-- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
elrepo mailing list
elrepo@lists.elrepo.org
http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
