Re: Linux-Libre-LTS

[Jonathan Brielmaier <jonathan.brielmaier@web.de>]

On 24.12.20 11:15, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> I have one concern.
>
> It seems to me that the main reason to specify an LTS kernel is to avoid
> the unscheduled breakage that can occur when updating to a new kernel
> release series (i.e. to a new major+minor version).  Using
> "linux-libre-lts" would fail to avoid these unscheduled updates; it
> would merely reduce their frequency.
>
> The only way to reliably avoid unscheduled major+minor kernel updates is
> to specify "linux-libre-5.10" or similar.  The cost of this approach is
> trivial: editing a few characters in the OS configuration when one
> wishes to update to a newer LTS series.  The benefit is that the user
> gains control over when these updates will happen, and thus when any
> associated breakage will occur.
>
> To my mind, the benefit of this approach is so compelling, and its cost
> so trivial, that I can hardly understand why anyone who wishes to use an
> LTS kernel would choose otherwise.

It sums up, the more systems you maintain the more sums up this trivial
work. Defining "linux-libre-lts" is the same we do for Icecat or
Icedove. Yes, there can be breakage when they got update from one ESR
branch to the newer one.

So there are reasons to use always the newest LTS/ESR software version...

So I support this addition.