Well, of course! I can also build kernel outside package management, or write a hook to backup kernels, but I'd like to see solution that would not require such dire and time consuming measures, and, ideally, would not require actions from me at all.
>Понедельник, 12 сентября 2016, 10:22 +03:00 от Jelle van der Waa ><je...@vdwaa.nl>: > >On 09/12/16 at 09:47am, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote: >> Should I spam kernel package maintainers then, or maybe someone will resolve >> bug as wontfix? > >Not sure why they need to be spammed, you can easily build linux47 as a >package and install it separate from the normal linux package. But I >guess you want to automatically retain your current installed linux pkg >when you upgrade to a newer version? > >> >> >> >Суббота, 10 сентября 2016, 0:58 +03:00 от Allan McRae < al...@archlinux.org >> >>: >> > >> >On 10/09/16 08:41, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote: >> >> Here is my attempt to solve seven years old infamous problem: >> >> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702 >> >> >> >> Patch won't solve problem out of the box, a small changes in kernel >> >> PKGBUILD >> >> will be required, but only concerning install part. >> >> >> >> Idea behind patch is pretty simple: >> >> 1) Configure list of packages and number of old versions pacman should >> >> try >> >> to preserve. >> >> 2) When upgading to new version, keep old in place, if it has no file >> >> conflicts with new one, and mark it as `archived`, remove oldest >> >> `archived` >> >> version instead. >> >> >> >> Most of time pacman treats `archived` packages as if they aren't >> >> installed. >> >> For now it won't check package conflicts and dependencies, only file >> >> conflicts >> >> with newer versions. It's only an outline of full solution, proof of >> >> concept >> >> to illustrate the idea. >> >> >> >> I'd like to hear opinion of community whether this problem should be >> >> solved >> >> at all, or is it more like a feature of ArchLinux, and if it should, >> >> whether >> >> such approach suits ArchLinux's philosophy. >> >> >> > >> >How is this better than having a package file sitting in the cache? >> > >> >The "kernel problem" in Arch is not because it is not possible to have >> >multiple kernel packages available. Other distributions provide endless >> >amounts of kernels (e.g. Manjaro). >> > >> >I don't see anything that needs done on the package manager end for this. >> > >> >Allan >> >> >> -- >> With wish of constant improvement >> and unstoppable creativity. >> Sergey Petrenko > >-- >Jelle van der Waa -- With wish of constant improvement and unstoppable creativity. Sergey Petrenko