linux-lts life cycle time period

17.poison · 2012-11-04 08:40:07

whats the time period/ life cycle for lts kernel?
when are we moving from 3.0.50 to 3.2.33? Do we have a time frame like, 2 years we'll use 3.0.50 and after that we move to 3.2?
How is it done and who decides it?

Xaero252 · 2012-11-04 09:06:05

Oh boy. That's actually quite the question.
For one, I'm not sure you asked this in the right forum (Not right subforum, as this is the Kernel subforum, but rather, the Archlinux forums are simply for this distribution alone)
Depending on your distribution, and your own personal decisions, it isn't really up to anyone on when you update your kernel. You can roll the kernel mainline or development branch and get updates every day if you compile your own.

Now, for Arch specifically, the Kernel goes through testing phases just like any other package before hitting the main Archlinux repos. For example, say a new version of the Linux kernel is compiled and packaged for Arch; a developer could then drop that kernel into the testing repos, and see how things go there (of course, only certain people have permission to do this, and those people now have to sign their packages digitally, ensuring you are getting things from a trusted source)
Once a kernel makes it through the testing repos, and all kinks are worked out (presuming there are any) the Kernel will then get brought into consideration for the main repo.

Its kind of a community decision with Arch, given that its primary developers are so heavily involved in the distribution's community, but for the most part they make the decision based on what new features and improvements are brought into the kernel, and whether or not the kernel is stable enough for release into the wild.

Your question seems slightly out of date, however that's coming from someone who lives on Archlinux: We're on Linux kernel 3.6.x currently. I myself choose to roll the Linux-CK kernel which includes some community contributions and the BFQ scheduler, and I'm currently at 3.6.5-1. As far as where the version numbers themselves come from, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kern … _numbering

tomk · 2012-11-04 09:23:09

Xaero252, the question is not out of date at all - Arch's current linux-lts package provdes the 3.0.50 lts release, the OP is wondering what Arch's policy is regarding upgrading that to the next available lts release, which is 3.2.33.

17.poison, in this case I'd suggest sending a mail to the dev who looks after the kernel packages.

Gusar · 2012-11-04 10:57:10

The problem (if you can call it that) is that there are several LTS releases. Greg KH is maintaining 3.0 for another year and 3.4 for another two years. Then there's Ben maintaining 3.2. They are all LTS, but Arch only packages 3.0 currently.

ajaxas · 2012-11-04 11:05:30

There were some crucial changes made between 3.2 and 3.4, especially critical for laptop users, so I'd suggest opting for 3.4.

If there's going to be any move from 3.0 at all, that is.

falconindy · 2012-11-04 13:55:47

I'd suggest not using lts at all. Honestly, it's unclear why we maintain it -- it gets even less testing than our linux package and it's just as frequently updated.

I'm not going to comment on when we might bump the minor version again, but last time we did so was because the previous release, 2.6.32, was end of life. We picked 3.0 as it was the newest kernel available marked as long term support by GregKH.

cfr · 2012-11-07 01:24:18

It's handy for warranty purposes .

"Yes, I know there's a power regression in the current 3.6.* kernels affecting intel graphics but I can reproduce the problem using my distro's LTS kernel from the 3.0.* series which does not have that problem. [Implied: so my laptop's shutting itself down due to overheating really can't be blamed on Linux and you should please take a look at what might be wrong with it.]"

WonderWoofy · 2012-11-07 01:42:53

A bit OT, but cfr, have you made any progress with that?

Allan · 2012-11-07 02:05:01

17.poison wrote:

How is it done and who decides it?

It is done by the Arch kernel maintainer when and how he decides...

donniezazen · 2012-11-07 07:32:08

3.0-lts is very slow. Would be nice to have 3.2 or 3.4.

tomk · 2012-11-07 08:07:00

How do you know it would be faster? And how are you measuring the speed of your kernel?

donniezazen · 2012-11-07 14:52:19

I don't know if it could be faster. It just lags. Let me know what speed test you want me to do to convince you. Or you can just run it on your system with Gnome and see how all animations and window effects lag.

lucke · 2012-11-07 15:01:35

donniezazen wrote:

I don't know if it could be faster. It just lags. Let me know what speed test you want me to do to convince you. Or you can just run it on your system with Gnome and see how all animations and window effects lag.

Maybe because Arch's linux-lts is compiled without preemption (it's geared towards servers). http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~baker/devices/lx … ig.preempt

AndyRTR · 2012-11-07 16:22:30

We will stick with the 3.0 branch for some more months. 3.0-lts runs pretty well on server systems and is a good fallback kernel where the most recent stable one may fail.

Both later branches (3.2 and 3.4) introduce several serious issues in power management/ACPI/nfs and some other areas we want to solve before we switch to a new branch. Arch kernel maintainers agreed to not switch before the end of this year. This may also lead us to jump right on the next lts kernel tree that Grek will announce early next year (3.7/3.8?). Time will tell.

JGC · 2012-11-07 22:26:33

So far the 3.2 kernel series are maintained by the Debian kernel team. I'm using 3.2 on some servers, but they don't make releases as often as Greg does with the 3.0 series.

Anyways, I think it's time to switch kernels when packages like udev/systemd start requiring features not available in the current version we maintain. When we were still packaging 2.6.32 for example, we had to include compat rules to make it work with recent versions of udev.

cfr · 2012-11-08 02:06:21

WonderWoofy wrote:

A bit OT, but cfr, have you made any progress with that?

Might be dried thermal paste in the heat sink, apparently. They've replaced it...

Arch Linux

#1 2012-11-04 08:40:07

linux-lts life cycle time period

#2 2012-11-04 09:06:05

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#3 2012-11-04 09:23:09

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#4 2012-11-04 10:57:10

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#5 2012-11-04 11:05:30

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#6 2012-11-04 13:55:47

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#7 2012-11-07 01:24:18

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#8 2012-11-07 01:42:53

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#9 2012-11-07 02:05:01

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#10 2012-11-07 07:32:08

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#11 2012-11-07 08:07:00

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#12 2012-11-07 14:52:19

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#13 2012-11-07 15:01:35

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#14 2012-11-07 16:22:30

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#15 2012-11-07 22:26:33

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

#16 2012-11-08 02:06:21

Re: linux-lts life cycle time period

Board footer