You are not logged in.
I see that [core] has kernel version 3.16.4 but upstream is 3.16.6. We have 3.17.1 in [testing] so it is getting quality controlled. I don't understand why 3.16.6 is not in [core]. It is tough to maintain two branches of the kernel? I see some major fixes in 3.16.6 that should be pushed to users. Thank you.
Offline
I think they went onto 3.17.2 in testing the other day. But what is in testing may not be the one that ends up in core. You can also use whatever is in testing by adding it to your repos.
Last edited by nomorewindows (2014-10-16 19:46:53)
I may have to CONSOLE you about your usage of ridiculously easy graphical interfaces...
Look ma, no mouse.
Offline
All packages that go to [core] have to go through [testing]. When there is a newer kernel already in [testing], it makes things a bit difficult. If there's something critical, the devs will get it in, but if it's getting close to moving the newer kernel to [core] anyway, it's usually not worth the hassle.
Offline
I don't understand why 3.16.6 is not in [core].
You can compile 3.16.6 yourself from ABS with minor modifications to the PKGBUILD.
I think they went onto 3.17.2 in testing the other day.
3.17.1-1 unless you have a time machine ![]()
Offline
It seems, to me, to be better to focus testing a single kernel in testing as opposed to trying to test multiple at the same time. It also seems a hell of a lot less complicated. I like my Linux bleeding, but I can wait another couple of days if it means the new kernel works well with other packages and in general.
Offline
If there is a critical issue discovered in the 3.16 [core] package, it will be updated while we stabilize the 3.17 [testing] package. Otherwise our time is better spent elsewhere.
Offline
I will learn ABS. Thank you for all of the answers.
Offline