Richard Brown wrote:
On 12 January 2017 at 12:05, Stefan Seyfried
wrote: On 11.01.2017 10:19, Bruno Friedmann wrote:
Also Jason, with Leap it's still not too risky to use the kernel-stable repository, I know it is not a messy devel project ;-)
Richard will not approve that option :-P
You might be surprised, see below :-P
On 12 January 2017 at 12:23, Stefan Seyfried
wrote: On 12.01.2017 10:06, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Despite of all that, I still prefer the SLE kernel. If people are able to make linux working on new machines, they are enough experienced to zypper ar Kernel:stable. Leap + K:stable usually cures most of the issues of new notebooks for me.
[...] So the default would be SLE kernel, but there's an option somewehere in the system (it might be a pre-added but not activated Kernel:stable repository or some script that add the repo and installs a newer kernel in addition to the old one) that allows relatively unexperienced users make their system work.
[...] I quite like the idea. In order to do it in a way that I think I could approve (or more importantly, that would be a robust, sensible way for the openSUSE Project to stake it's reputation on) we would require something like the following criteria:
1. Some kind of formal submission review separate from the current [...] 2. Some kind of formal testing process. This would be to catch actual [...] 3. Some kind of formal release process. Which upstream kernel versions [...]
What about just using maintenance updates? All points solved there already. That "latest upstream kernel" just needs a name != kernel-default so it can coexist in the official repo. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.com/ SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org