On 01/08/18, Andrey Vihrov via arch-general wrote: > Hi, > > Recently the way kernel sources are retrieved was changed in the linux > package [1]. Now the sources are fetched from > https://github.com/archlinux/linux. > > I see a few problems with this: > > - Previously the list of applied patches was very transparent. You could > immediately see that the kernel and kernel patch tarballs come from > kernel.org, and view individual extra patches. Now the code comes from a > non-kernel source, and cannot be verified as easily. > > - Previously, if a new kernel version is released and is not yet in the > repos, you could more or less take the official linux PKGBUILD, change > one number and build it yourself. With the new layout it is not clear > how to achieve this. > > - An often cited Arch policy is to use software as released by upstream > with minimal patching. What becomes of this policy if one of the core > packages builds from a technical fork instead of upstream? > > > If the patches from kernel.org will no longer be signed, as announced in > [2], then an alternative would be git tags from [3] and [4]. It's > understandable if it may make development harder, nonetheless it would > allow for better transparency and follow upstream closer — just one > user's opinion. > > > [1] > https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/linux&id=d0c4ab0716e0ae1fc058a83ccb02bde92885ced6 > [2] https://www.kernel.org/minor-changes-to-tarball-release-format.html > [3] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/ > [4] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git > > -- > Regards, > Andrey Also now to build the package locally you download the whole repository (~2 Gb compared to the ~110 Mb previously). What's the reasoning behind this change? Regards, -- Leonidas Spyropoulos A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
