[elrepo] kernel/kernel-lts separation

[Phil Perry]

On 10/10/12 11:18, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Phil Perry wrote:
>> On 10/10/12 09:30, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2012 11:21 AM, Nux! wrote:
>>>> On 10.10.2012 09:12, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
>>>>> On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Nux! wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guys, is there a possibility to have the TLS kernels in their own
>>>>>> repo or would it be just spreading too thin? Maybe some hardlinks as
>>>>>> to not waste space.. I'm not using the lts kernel but I'm thinking
>>>>>> many do and they don't want to have the lts kernel updated by the
>>>>>> "latest" one.
>>>>>> I know people who run kernel-ml should only be using it with
>>>>>> --enablerepo anyway, but oh well, the idea just hit me so had to
>>>>>> share. :-) +1 here. not that "LTS" means much when 3.0.x was updated
>>>>>> twice in >2 weeks...
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear what you're +1 for. :)
>>> Oh well. +1 for separating LTS. "kernel-ml" is too broad now, covering
>>> 3-4 different versions.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Great suggestion. I agree, it makes sense to separate versions so yum is
>> able to intelligently update within a branch.
>>
>> How can we best achieve that? Repo separation is one method. Are there
>> any other ways we could achieve it with some yum versioning trickery or
>> is repo separation our only option - just thinking through the
>> alternatives.
>
> perhaps you could rename the packages kernel-ml-lts and keep them in the
> same repo, not sure if it's better than a separate repo but I don't see
> other options.
>

How about kernel-ml and kernel-lts for mainline and lts kernels, 
respectively. But even that gets complicated as it looks like Alan is 
currently maintaining 3.0, 3.5 and 3.6 branches.

Still, renaming the 3.0.x packages to kernel-lts would at least 
differentiate between the LTS release and other mainline/stable releases 
and would allow yum to continue to update the LTS kernel series from 
within the same repo.