Nonetheless, the switch from 3.5.3 to 3.4.6 in Tumbleweed looks a bit strange if Tumbleweed is seen as a distro in its own right (I know it is not). Would it not be more logical, and allow a smoother “rolling” , if kernel updates, as most other package updates in Tumbleweed, followed factory?
But back to my original question:
Does anybody know when kernel 3.5.3 will be back on tumbleweed?
There’s a thread on Tumbleweed by it’s maintainer, GregKH. Just give it a couple of weeks, so that the repos for 12.2 can settle down. After that the Tumleweed repo will be filled with new packages, presumably the latest stable kernel as well.
My understanding was/is that Tumbleweed repo would have the most recent stable version of a qualifying package (must also be in Factory), as considered by the packager/author. In the case of the kernel, GregKH seems well qualified as a kernel dev to decide on which version is stable enough to be included.
GregKH seems well qualified as a kernel dev to decide on which version is stable enough to be included
I would never want to doubt neither the qualification of GregKH, nor the stability of kernel 3.5.3, which I happily used for quite some time. Nonetheless, my original argument remains valid. As you mentioned yourself, the kernel is the only (or at least one of the few) package that is not first released into factory. This means that my update to 12.2 from 12.1 TW was actually a downgrade as far as linux (in the narrow sense) is concerned.
Indeed. It wasn’t my intention to suggest otherwise, just to comment on the fact. Sorry for not making that clearer.
Nonetheless, my original argument remains valid. As you mentioned yourself, the kernel is the only (or at least one of the few) package that is not first released into factory. This means that my update to 12.2 from 12.1 TW was actually a downgrade as far as linux (in the narrow sense) is concerned.
Yes, Tumbleweed reverses on many packages e.g. kernel and KDE. Unfortunately so far it’s not a complete rolling release, and dependent on the standard release. I like to be fully updated on my systems, but I don’t like wasting time downgrading packages unless it’s to fix a problem.
As long as GK-H wants to take TW’s kernel and any other packages well beyond the final standard release versions, and you choose to install them, the situation will remain the same. I waited quite a long time before upgrading TW to 12.1, until most packages were actual upgrades. Might do the same for 12.2, as my TW (12.1) is stable and was always an improvement on 12.1 standard.
Unless GK-H changes course, a solution for changeover to 12.3 could be to hold your TW package levels at or just below the upcoming 12.3 levels. That information is usually fixed and well known before Beta testing release. Then you can be sure of an upgrade (for most of it).
No problem, but thanks for the clarification. @keellambert
I installed kernel 3.5.4 and it did solve the problem (as I had little doubt it would). However, I did not install it from the repository you mentioned, but from the kernel archives using for the compilation the script provided in the above link.
Since having multiple kernels is now quite easy, the situation as it is in TW is not really a problem for me and I remain quite a happy user with it. The only problem is that I should probably had planned for a (bit) bigger /boot partition.(It is still big enough for three concurrent kernels though and if I need more I am probably doing something wrong ;-))
As yet I have not seen an advantage of having more than one kernel installed
If you look around the repos there are lots of different kernels available
Compiling your own kernel may have rewards but it is very time and disk space
consuming, the last time I tried it ~70k extra files were added to the system
and 30 - 60 minutes lost
Doesn’t the advantage or not depend on one’s backup/recovery arrangements?
I guess so. I have a relatively irregular backup plan, so for me this is kind of a safety net.
As far as time is concerned, I don’t really stop working on the PC while compiling (maybe that is a risk, but I haven’t encountered any problems so far), and it’ s not something I actively monitor…so I would not say that I loose the whole 20-30 min (this is my fastest machine and hence the only one that actually profits visibly from a recent kernel), but I must agree on the space part and the fact that you have to cleanup the clutter afterwards (which is a bit easier when using the package manager instead of compiling).
The thing is when I used SAKC for the first time the kernel I needed was not available in any repository, and now I do find it convenient…
But after all, GNU/Linux is about choice isn’t it
Likewise, I use the multiple kernels trick only on my Tumbleweed system that features more kernel upgrades, so I can quickly revert to the previous one. Haven’t needed to so far, but it works well.
About choice: yes, if and when the provider chooses to do so.
