Re: [arch-general] core/linux provides kernel*26*, not kernel4
2015-05-03 18:29 GMT+02:00 Doug Newgard : > > The only purpose they would serve would be someone running extremely out of > date packages or trying to upgrade an extremely out of date system. I don't think a system running a 2.6 kernel would be salvageable anyway. The many filesystem, systemd, etc upgrades would make this a horrible job. ;) 2015-05-03 18:29 GMT+02:00 Doug Newgard : > Of course, they also don't hurt anything. That's also true, but we like to Keep It Simple, right. ;) (although this might be a bit overly obsessive) Sebastiaan
Re: [arch-general] core/linux provides kernel*26*, not kernel4
On Sun, 3 May 2015 18:15:54 +0200 Sebastiaan Lokhorst wrote: > 2015-05-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 Doug Newgard : > > > > It's left over from when the package was named differently. > > > > So they serve no purpose anymore, right? > > I have opened a bug report asking for them to be removed: > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/44826 > > Thanks > Sebastiaan The only purpose they would serve would be someone running extremely out of date packages or trying to upgrade an extremely out of date system. Of course, they also don't hurt anything. Doug
Re: [arch-general] core/linux provides kernel*26*, not kernel4
2015-05-03 15:10 GMT+02:00 Doug Newgard : > > It's left over from when the package was named differently. > So they serve no purpose anymore, right? I have opened a bug report asking for them to be removed: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/44826 Thanks, Sebastiaan
Re: [arch-general] core/linux provides kernel*26*, not kernel4
On Sun, 03 May 2015 12:52:36 + Roman Rader wrote: > Why https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/linux/ package provides > kernel26 while current version is 4? Is it a mistake or 26 means something > else? > > Roman kernel26 = kernel 2.6. It's left over from when the package was named differently.
