[pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

MatejLach · 2011-06-23 16:41:27

Hallo Arch community!

I just want to ask if you are expecting any major problems coming with kernel 3.0 update.
The reason I am asking is because that kernel 2.6.x was here for so long, that some apps/scripts are counting just with kernel labeled 2.6.something and so theoretically all of these apps/scripts etc. which are no longer under active development could became broken.
I cannot list any app/script like that now, but this is just a theoretical question...
So what do you think about this?
Thx,
MTL,

Moderator: changed thread title to avoid confusion over [CLOSED] in title when the thread is still open

Last edited by MatejLach (2011-06-23 20:13:33)

karol · 2011-06-23 17:05:25

It's the same as with any namechange - firefox, xulrunner etc. You need to fix your scripts.

MatejLach · 2011-06-23 17:10:32

karol wrote:

It's the same as with any namechange - firefox, xulrunner etc. You need to fix your scripts.

Yes, but this is kernel not just a single app, that is why I am a bit nervous, you cannot know where you did not changed the reference to an old name and the whole system could be gone :-)

litemotiv · 2011-06-23 17:31:06

Moved to GNU/Linux Discussion since this question goes beyond the kernel and hardware.

tomk · 2011-06-23 18:26:05

MatejLach wrote:

you cannot know where you did not changed the reference to an old name

Well... you should. If you have written scripts or other apps that are hardcoded like that, you need to keep track of them yourself - nobody else is going to do it for you.

karol · 2011-06-23 18:30:02

You don't have to update as soon as the new kernel etc. naming scheme hits the repos. Wait a couple days if you want and see if anyone has any problems regarding kernel 3.0.

MatejLach · 2011-06-23 18:40:16

tomk wrote:

MatejLach wrote:
you cannot know where you did not changed the reference to an old name
Well... you should. If you have written scripts or other apps that are hardcoded like that, you need to keep track of them yourself - nobody else is going to do it for you.

Sure I should, I know...

MatejLach · 2011-06-23 18:41:46

karol wrote:

You don't have to update as soon as the new kernel etc. naming scheme hits the repos. Wait a couple days if you want and see if anyone has any problems regarding kernel 3.0.

Yeah, that is definitively something I would do after kernel 3.0 release.

MatejLach · 2011-06-23 18:44:30

My question mainly was about if there are/will be,(are in works), any "name migration tools" out there, that will check the integrity of your system etc. after you made the necessary changes by hand...?

tomk · 2011-06-23 18:50:25

Can you give an actual example that you're worried about? Reality is always better than vague "what-if" scenarios.

I'm happy to be completely unconcerned about this, btw.

eldragon · 2011-06-23 19:15:33

the big issue is with scripts expecting 3 numbers separated with a dot.

right now the kernel announces itself as 3.0.0 because of this. but this will probably change, so if you have a script expecting 3 numbers ... fix it

MatejLach · 2011-06-23 20:06:03

eldragon wrote:

the big issue is with scripts expecting 3 numbers separated with a dot.
right now the kernel announces itself as 3.0.0 because of this...

Yes, I think that will help me a lot...

MatejLach · 2011-06-23 20:12:55

tomk wrote:

Can you give an actual example that you're worried about? Reality is always better than vague "what-if" scenarios.

As I said in my original post, I do not have such script handy, but I came accross such script before - if I could find it I would post it here.
I posted this question mainly for somebody who tested the RC releaes, so they can share their troughs on this issue, but as I can clearly see, no one is worried about it, so I think I can mark this as [CLOSED] for now.

Thanks for sharing your troughs!

WorMzy · 2011-06-24 01:38:04

If it helps, I've been using the 3.0.0 release candidates for a week or so now, and I haven't had any problems with any software.

ANOKNUSA · 2011-06-24 05:07:46

There's a [Closed] tag in the header, yet I see no Mod anouncement of closure... Just MatejLach's closure (by the way, I made the same mistake when I first showed up here; these threads stay open until the Mods close them). My two cents, just for anyone else who drops by: I suspect any foreseen issues will be dealt with as well as possible. The word about 3.0 is out; the source is readily available. Active projects will deal with it as necessary, and dead projects will be even... Uh... deader, or something. Guess I just felt like saying what everyone else is thinking.

ewaller · 2011-06-24 05:17:10

Moderator Comment:
It is not really closed. I had seen the [CLOSED] tag, but it is only part of the topic name. I had considered closing the thread since that comment can only come from the original poster (or another moderator). Since there is nothing really wrong with the thread, I had no valid reason to close it.

tomk · 2011-06-24 05:57:47

OK - if it's still open, I was mildly curious about this:

eldragon wrote:

right now the kernel announces itself as 3.0.0 because of this. but this will probably change

eldragon, why do you think it will change? have you a reference for this? I personally don't see any reason for it to change - current releases are 2.6.x(.y), so why wouldn't new releases be 3.0.x(.y)?

seiichiro0185 · 2011-06-24 06:34:40

AFAIK the idea of dropping the last (4th) number was discussed on the kernel mailing list, and Linus was in favor of the idea (or even brought it up). As far as I have followed the discussion it seems likely that the kernel will switch to a 3.x(.y) scheme, basically replacing the "2.6" with the single number "3". Unfortunately I don't have the respective thread on the LKML handy right now.

Last edited by seiichiro0185 (2011-06-24 06:37:37)

tomk · 2011-06-24 09:13:29

OK thanks

.:B:. · 2011-06-24 22:02:13

3.x is all about branding, it's like Mozilla jumping numbers with Firefox. There's nothing to it; the only thing your fear about the 'transition' tells us is you're buying into this corporate mumbo jumbo .

The 2.6.39 > 3.0 transition is way less significant than the 2.4 > 2.6 jump. It's evolution, not revolution, and it will pretty much be like you'd be running 2.6.40 - only that it's now called 3.0.

ConnorBehan · 2011-06-25 14:25:47

This page http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n … &px=OTUwMg has the business about going from 2.6 to 3.0 to just 3. Since the OP hasn't given specific examples, I have one. Will the new package still be called kernel26? I think that would be best since it really is a 2.6 kernel and anything that depends on 2.6.x will still work with 3.x.

karol · 2011-06-25 14:36:08

ConnorBehan wrote:

This page http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n … &px=OTUwMg has the business about going from 2.6 to 3.0 to just 3. Since the OP hasn't given specific examples, I have one. Will the new package still be called kernel26? I think that would be best since it really is a 2.6 kernel and anything that depends on 2.6.x will still work with 3.x.

It can provide 'kernel26'
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24448
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24524

WorMzy · 2011-06-25 16:14:22

Not a lot depends on the kernel26 package, I uninstalled it a while ago after I started building my own 2.6 kernels. I'm sure that most (if not all) of the kernel features that these packages require are still available in the 3.0.0 kernel, so as long as the Arch package maintainers compile the 3.0.0 kernel with these options enabled the 3.0.0 kernel will work in place of the 2.6 kernel. As for the pacman side of things, like Karol said, the kernel 3.0.0 package could provide kernel26; alternatively, kick kernel26 out of the repos and update the dependent packages' PKGBUILDs so they depend on kernel3. I'm not sure that would be a popular decision, but I'm sure an identical package would pop up on the aur in no time.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-06-23 16:41:27

[pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#2 2011-06-23 17:05:25

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#3 2011-06-23 17:10:32

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#4 2011-06-23 17:31:06

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#5 2011-06-23 18:26:05

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#6 2011-06-23 18:30:02

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#7 2011-06-23 18:40:16

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#8 2011-06-23 18:41:46

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#9 2011-06-23 18:44:30

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#10 2011-06-23 18:50:25

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#11 2011-06-23 19:15:33

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#12 2011-06-23 20:06:03

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#13 2011-06-23 20:12:55

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#14 2011-06-24 01:38:04

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#15 2011-06-24 05:07:46

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#16 2011-06-24 05:17:10

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#17 2011-06-24 05:57:47

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#18 2011-06-24 06:34:40

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#19 2011-06-24 09:13:29

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#20 2011-06-24 22:02:13

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#21 2011-06-25 14:25:47

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#22 2011-06-25 14:36:08

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

#23 2011-06-25 16:14:22

Re: [pseudo CLOSED] [QUESTION] - Kernel 3.0 and older apps?

Board footer