Linux 6.1 should be the new LTS version, but it doesn't look like this in pacman

[r0ckhopper]

@manuel

It is not even mentioned on this page as an LTS release

Interesting… I’m not brave enough to tell the Arch maintainers to rename the linux-lts package though

[BS86]

its labeled correctly on the page that matters:
https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

[petsam]

@fbodymechanic

The latest and lts will never be the same kernel. 6.1 won’t get the lts label officially until the 6.2 hits latest.

Solution?

@fbodymechanic

You can’t have the latest and long term kernel the same. That doesn’t make sense.

Consider proper sense definition, when the LTS is newer than standard linux

@r0ckhopper

linux-lts 6.1.13-1 has just hit the core repo, and linux 6.2 is still in testing, so I have the bizarre situation where the LTS kernel is ahead of the main kernel on my computer

There is always a first time for everything!!
We should mark this date!! , like with the grub event

We really need to recalibrate our Crystral Balls!!

[joekamprad]

So much for that

[keybreak]

@petsam

We really need to recalibrate our Crystral Balls!!

You mean balls?!
I have big balls, calibrating them all the time…!

[BS86]

@r0ckhopper

linux-lts 6.1.13-1 has just hit the core repo, and linux 6.2 is still in testing, so I have the bizarre situation where the LTS kernel is ahead of the main kernel on my computer

that will actually be the case for some more days:

@BS86

Given the record, it will arrive there tomorrow or wednesday, and will be propagated to core earliest 1-2 days after the .1 release hits testing, which means by the weekend, earliest, like I already stated above.

So far, no 6.2.1-rc1 has been propagated on LKML which means that such a .1 release is still at least 2 days in the future which in return means that 6.2 will remain in testing for at least 3 more days. Unless they (Arch maintainers) decide to be really adventurous and move the 6.2.0 Kernel to core. Looking at the new Kernel-bugs at https://bugs.archlinux.org that arrived after 6.2 was added to testing, that is very unlikely.
The only reason why a minor release would be made without an RC on the Kernel Mailing List is in case of a very critical CVE fix contained, and nobody wants that.

[fbodymechanic]

That looks to me like whomever maintains the lts screwed up.

@petsam

Consider proper sense definition, when the LTS is newer than standard linux

It still doesn’t make sense. Even the kernel team manual posted doesn’t seem to think 6.1 is lts. . . . I don’t know why or who is doing the lts kernel, but I think they meant to have updated the testing repo and not core.

But the whole point if having different kernels is they are. . . Different lol.

So, I don’t have a clue what’s going on over there, but there’s a first time for everything. Very very strange indeed.

[BS86]

@fbodymechanic

That looks to me like whomever maintains the lts screwed up.

They didn’t screw up, they planned it:

@BS86

Reason:

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/77561?project=1&string=linux-lts

and the only place where a LTS kernel needs to be declared is in the LKML and here:
https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

[ricklinux]

Planned and executed …flawlessly!

[fbodymechanic]

@BS86

They didn’t screw up, they planned it

Well someone did. There’s absolutely no reason to have two different kernels, that are the same kernel lol.

[BS86]

@fbodymechanic

Well someone did. There’s absolutely no reason to have two different kernels, that are the same kernel lol.

The userbases are completely different.
People using the LTS kernel won’t use mainline anyway and vice versa.
Issues arising with the update of the LTS package have to be dealt with anyway so now is as good as ever and older kernels aren’t available in the official repos anyway, so the debug-way back has to be downgrade or getting kernels from other sources anyway.
The only thing that’s now a bit more difficult is debugging systems usually running the mainline kernel with a different kernel, but for that one can also activate testing and have a different kernel again.

[fbodymechanic]

I’ve always had both kernels, and I know many others who have both, it’s more common than not. It’s a good thing to have in case the other doesn’t work, which makes zero sense if they arent different. So ya, they shouldn’t be the same, someone screwed up on that one. Probably the lts maintainer, since they still also maintain 5.15 and the mainline hasn’t updated still.

[BS86]

@fbodymechanic

I’ve always had both kernels, and I know many others who have both, it’s more common than not.

I also have the LTS kernel installed, but I never use it.

@fbodymechanic

someone screwed up on that one.

if fixing bugs is screwing up, then yes, you are right. I already linked the bug reporting that Intel Wifi is broken with 5.15 due to linux-firmware removing support for it and was fixed with 6.1 two times, I won’t post it a third time.
Fixing that bug seemed to be more important than a minor inconvenience for people who have both kernels installed but still use only one of them.

[manuel]

The thing is that some users will benefit from this decision, and some will suffer. Many will not even notice anything else than a new kernel version number.

I’m feeling lucky because my machines are working with all of the latest kernels, including series 5.15, 6.1, and 6.2 (now in testing).
There have been problems a couple or so times in the past, but they have been almost every time just Nvidia issues.

[fbodymechanic]

My car doesn’t run on petrol.

That’s convenient, because we also have this petrol.

I know it’s supposed to be different, but, it’s actually the same today.

Perfect, I’ll just push my car. Thanks.

[ricklinux]

Using an lts kernel is overrated! Sure if you use Ubuntu…that’s what you get. This is Arch based rolling. If your system needs lts then you either have old hardware or you bought the wrong hardware.

Edit: I used to run Mint with older hardware and i always used the latest kernels.

[manuel]

@ricklinux

Sure if you use Ubuntu…that’s what you get.

My experience long time ago with Ubuntu was they almost never got the LTS kernel for their latest LTS system. Later they provided it as a special update though.
Them having old software always was the reason I started to look at other alternatives.

[r0ckhopper]

Updated to linux-lts 6.1.14 this morning, and linux is still stuck at 6.1.12. LTS is where all the action is at right now

[limotux]

@r0ckhopper

the LTS kernel is ahead of the main kernel on my computer

Same here!
Just thinking out loud with you.
I made this thread Set systemd-boot Default to LTS? as I found the system not defaulting to the LTS as used to be/expected.
So, I guess that currently my LTS is ahead of the default, it defaulted to the older (which is the main line not the LTS)