Hi, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> writes: > Would it be too complicated to include both the latest LTS kernel and > the most recently packaged kernel in the installer, and default to using > the same kernel for the installation?
Sounds good to me. More specifically, I would suggest offering the user a choice between using the latest stable kernel, or using the latest kernel from the most recent LTS series at the time of installation. If the user chooses the latter option, the installer would produce an OS configuration containing "(kernel linux-libre-X.YY)", where X.YY is latest LTS series at installation time. The idea is that if they choose the LTS kernel option today, 'linux-libre-5.10' would be put into their OS config, so they would stay on the 5.10 kernel series until they explicitly update to a later series. This is a good choice for production systems where stability is more important than running the latest code, and even for ordinary users who wish to have control over when major kernel updates are done. I would recommend avoiding the 'linux-libre-lts' variable, because it fails to provide the primary benefit that LTS kernels are meant to provide: the ability to postpone potentially disruptive major kernel upgrades until a time of the user's choosing, when the user is prepared for possible breakage. Users who put 'linux-libre-lts' in their OS configurations should expect that a major kernel upgrade will happen several years before it is needed, and could happen unexpectedly any time they upgrade their system. Unless they carefully inspect the 'guix' command output _every_ time they upgrade their system, users of the 'linux-libre-lts' variable are unlikely to notice a major kernel upgrade until it has already been done. Thoughts? Thanks, Mark -- Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.