Hi! I suggest changing the main kernel meta package to point to the latest LTS kernel release.
Reasons:
I read the main reason for the meta packages are to help non-tech savvy people update their kernels. However, few of those people would need anything newer than the latest LTS.
I recently ran into an issue with 6.18 and decided to revert to 6.12 instead. I assume sticking to LTS kernels would be more reliable to more people.
I can’t use linux-lts-meta either because it seems 5.4 doesn’t fully support Wayland(?). At least I can’t properly boot into Wayland with it for some reason, haven’t investigated.
I’m afraid for some people for whom I installed Manjaro with linux-meta. I could have had them stay in 6.12 but that will be EOL at some point.
TLDR: Based on my experience, a meta package pointing to latest LTS (6.12 at the moment) would be more optimal to more people than either of the current meta packages, which point to oldest LTS (5.4) and latest main (6.18).
I think it is better to have 2 “branches”, as it is right now. And lts-meta should roll from lts to lts, and the normal meta should roll to the next non-lts.
In any case 6.18 is not tagged LTS on Manjaro kernel manager. I am not a kernel developer, but I assume it may be more unstable anyhow, because it is so recent. I had it installed and ran into issues. That is one of the reasons I suggested changing this current setup to a probably more stable one.
I wasn’t reallly suggesting we should only have one, or that wasn’t the point anyway. If your opinion is heeded, then I would suggest upgrading LTS meta to something more recent. My point was that in my experience, something in the middle would actually be more stable than really old (5.4) or really new (6.18).
And stability is what I understand these meta packages are mostly about. “Latest LTS” or as @philm pointed out, “second latest LTS” was only one idea of the logic with which this meta package would update.
The initial idea was not to have the best or most stable kernel, but to somehow salvage the system which would otherwise become unbootable if the user does not take care of the system/kernels.
Well, concepts change, that is why the feedback forum exists, for suggestions.
Yeah, that seems correct, thanks. I last checked about 2 weeks ago, when I last contemplated on this. It being 5.10 does not affect what I was proposing though.
If the point of the meta packages is not stability, then I have nothing further to add. That was my main point, so… yeah. Thanks for the replies anyway. Keep up the good work. -R
No, I can’t let go yet, sorry. I mean, why could not the point of meta packages be stability? Linux 6.12 is marked EOL at the end of this year, so even the newbie user will only survive for so long without upgrading. For long before these current meta packages I wondered why there weren’t such a thing, because managing kernels was a scary thing to learn (a good one though).
My understanding is that Manjaro is supposed to be stable; stable enough to be used by people who are not interested in learning the insides of a computer. I may be wrong here though. In any case, this would be a small enhancement, a simple way of easing the learning curve.
For reference, although this is not the main issue here: Kernel.org says 6.18 is “stable” and 6.12 is “longterm”.
In Arch repos linuxis 6.18 and linux-ltsis 6.12
But… I’m not a maintainer so I really respect whatever decision the actual maintainers do, just offering my perspective.
That’s because marking a kernel as LTS in the manjaro-settings-manager requires an update to the manjaro-settings-manager package itself. It’s just the ad hoc way that the software was written, given that it only happens once a year that a given kernel is designated as LTS.
As explained already, the purpose of the linux-meta and linux-lts-meta packages is to make sure that your system can still boot if your EOL kernel is removed during the update process. No more, no less.
I’m afraid your understanding would be incorrect, then. Yes, Manjaro Stable is intended to be stable — and it is — but it is not a set-and-forget distribution. Please read the short essay below…
That is not how an Arch-based rolling-release distribution works.
Arch — and by consequence Manjaro — will always require one to pay attention and periodically get one’s hands dirty. It’s the nature of the beast. It is imperative for people to understand this.
While Manjaro Linux provides an nice installer for a system based on Arch Linux it is not a set and forget system.
I don’t think it will ever be.
If you really need such kind of system - then you should use Ubuntu LTS - signup for their Ubuntu Pro (it’s free for the first 5 computers) then you have 5 years of a somewhat worry free computing.
Ubuntu 24.04 LTS is using Linux 6.8 - this is their choice of LTS kernel.
This means you won’t have support for the latest trend in hardware and drivers - perhaps you don’t need that.
My primary reason for using Manjaro Linux is hardware support.
The secondary reason is because it has become habit.
I know the package manager - it beats apt in any aspect known to me.
Ubuntu is reliable - very useful for running a container service - it does not require much maintenance other than the occasional check-in on the logs.
There is also the possibility to use newer kernels.
But not right from the get-go, during installation.
That has to be done after.
611 and 617 is what I see here on Mint, which is based upon Ubuntu.
… just saying …
Arch would break because it auto-upgrades its kernels, which I think is reasonable for (cutting edge) rolling release. Currently Manjaro requires more effort to manage kernels than Arch, in my experience.
That is basically my original bewilderment: why is there no reasonable way to auto-upgrade kernels in a rolling release distro, especially since the distro is based on Arch that does exactly this. A linux-lts equivalent in the Stable branch? I was really surprised back when I came from Arch and learned there was no such thing.
Upon seeing the meta-packages I thought that was their point, but I was wrong.
All Manjaro ISOs for the Stable branch come with the most recent LTS kernel by default — for Manjaro 26.0, this is the 6.18 LTS kernel — so I’m afraid I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m talking about the Arch linux-lts package, that as of yesterday is at 6.12, which is at least for me more stable than 6.18. I know 6.18 is LTS. It’s just that it seems to have some rough edges, presumably because it is so new.
I don’t understand how you do not have any idea what I am talking about. Maybe you didn’t read my previous posts?
I’ve been running 6.18 for about a month now, as my daily driver, and my computer is up 24/7. I haven’t had any problems with it so far. If you did, then there’s a chance it would be something local to your machine, and especially so if you’re running a proprietary driver.
That said, we used to have two packages, linux-latest and linux-lts-latest, but apparently they caused problems for people with Nvidia drivers, and that is why they were dropped.
