From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id wPCnKa1q5F+1WQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 10:17:17 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id aPl/Ja1q5F8MEAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 10:17:17 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C703940418 for ; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 10:17:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:48760 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ksNgI-0000Cu-7v for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 05:17:14 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50190) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ksNfw-0000Cm-7Q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 05:16:52 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:54346) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ksNfu-0002ZE-BA for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 05:16:51 -0500 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ksNfr-00084t-MO; Thu, 24 Dec 2020 05:16:47 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: Raghav Gururajan , guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Linux-Libre-LTS In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 05:15:45 -0500 Message-ID: <877dp7ik5v.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.112.178.59; envelope-from=mhw@netris.org; helo=world.peace.net X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -0.83 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 6C703940418 X-Spam-Score: -0.83 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: usj9787UQQmO Hi Raghav, Raghav Gururajan writes: > I think it is good to have a package-variable "linux-libre-lts", as > mentioned in the table at https://jxself.org/linux-libre/ > > This way, users don't have to remember and change the version numbers in > their operating-system-configuration or package-manifest, whenever there > is new LTS release. > > 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. If we add "linux-libre-lts" to Guix, I worry that some users would use it without understanding what they are sacrificing, and later get burned by breakage when we modify its binding next year, or in some future year. A user who does not understand Guix in depth might reasonably expect that when choosing "linux-libre-lts", upgrades to a later LTS series would be postponed until the user gives explicit consent. In theory, Guix could be modified to behave this way, although I doubt it would be worth the added complexity. In any case, since it *could* be done, a user might reasonably expect it. If the goal is to solve the problem of users forgetting to update to newer LTS kernels, I suggest exploring other approaches. Perhaps we could implement some system where Guix provides periodic reminders to consider upgrading, when an older LTS kernel is specified in the OS configuration and a newer LTS is available. There'd need to be a way to silence the warnings though. What do you think? Regards, Mark