According to an earlier post back in February of this year (2021):
“Manjaro’s LTS kernels follow the upstream kernel.org LTS. So yes, 5.10 will be an LTS in Manjaro.”
And according to kernel.org:
Yet according to Manajro Settings > Kernel, it does not denote 5.10 as an LTS kernel?
(It also does not tag it as “recommended”, like it does with the previous three LTS kernels.)
It is purely cosmetic - the lack of description is purely cosmetic - it doesn’t change the fact that 5.10 is LTS.
So to clarify, I can keep linux-510 installed and active, and it will remain updated with the same “lifespan” of the earlier LTS kernels, such as 5.4, 4.19, 4.14, etc?
As you can see, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8 are no longer available (and they were not tagged as “LTS”), so my concern is that 5.10 will meet the same fate because it has not been tagged as such, and that perhaps the Manjaro team decided to skip tagging it as an LTS release.
Can I submit a bug report or make a request in here for it to be clearly tagged as an LTS kernel, especially for the sake of minimizing confusion for new users migrating to Manjaro?
Correct.
No. linux510 will not be removed from the repo, like 5.5 was as 5.5 was not LTS, so it does not “last as long”. The reason the Settings Manager does not show 5.10 as an LTS, is because it needs to be set manually in the Settings Manager source code. And that has simply not been done yet. The settings manager will keep listing all the kernels available in the repository, which include listing new kernels and removing old kernels.
Thank you for the quick follow-up!
I now have a better understanding of what I’m seeing in the Manjaro Settings Manager (Kernel), but I will admit that I think even something as minor as a “cosmetic” or a “label” can make an impression on the end-user, especially new users. (More important than a developer might suspect, as labels and designations can be treated as important and attention-grabbing to the end-user.)
If I pretend I’m a new user, I’m looking at the available options and I’m seeing that certain kernels are explicitly tagged as Recommended and LTS, while others are not.
For all intents and purposes, 5.10 looks like “just another kernel” that will vanish sooner than the long-lived LTS and Recommended kernels. (Yet the reality is it’s just as recommended as 5.4, and it’s also going to have the same longterm lifespan as an LTS kernel.)
I agree. I think the developer of Manjaro Settings Manager has had no time to do it yet.
It is there, but not yet packaged …
Is done - fixed with MSM 0.5.6-12
I had read an article where the kernel Maintainer had some concerns about having substantial developer support longer than twelve months before fully committing to LTS designation. I think I remember correctly.
Yes exactly this was my problem in the past with 5.10… i pointed that out several times in this Forums, 3-4 month ago.
Because i wanted to switch to the next releasing Recommended LTS Kernel release.
Its a big difference for alot user’s to see a Kernel is marked as official recommended or not…
because we count on that Info.
This may be the article you were referring to?
BINGO! That is the one. I am a simple User and not able to support development myself.
I have to agree with Greg KH. The companies that want de facto 6-year support on a specific kernel need to offer assistance, whether developers, funding, or at least show signs of commitment to actually upgrading to a newer kernel (to break the chicken-and-egg paradox.)
EDIT: Ahaha! I just read some more comments further down in that article, and someone else used the “chicken-and-egg” paradox already. 
