Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:47:22 +0100 schrieb Neil Bothwick : > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:34:55 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote: > > > Surprise surprise, 4.7 has this (still not fully fixed) oom-killer > > bug. When I'm running virtual machines, it still kicks in. I wanted > > to stay on 4.6.x until 4.8 is released, and only then switch to > > 4.7. Now I was forced early (I'm using btrfs), and was instantly > > punished by doing so: > > No one forced you to do anything. You 4.6 kernel was still in boot, > your 4.6 sources were still installed. The ebuild was only removed > fro the portage tree, nothing was uninstalled from your system unless > you did it. Even the ebuild was still on your computer in /var/db/pkg. Of course nobody forced me. I just can't follow how the 4.7 ebuild kind-of replaced the 4.6 (and others) ebuild in face of this pretty mature oom-killer problem. Removal of a 4.6 series ebuild also means there would follow no updates - so my next upgrade would "force" me into deciding going way down (probably a bad idea) or up into unknown territory (and this showed: can also be a problem). Or I can stay with 4.6 until depclean removed it for good (which will, by the way, remove the files from /usr/src). I think masking had been a much more fair option, especially because portage has means of displaying me the reasoning behind masking it. In the end, I simply was really unprepared for this - and this is usually not how Gentoo works and always worked for me. I'm used to Gentoo doing better. Even if the 4.6 series were keyworded - in case of kernel packages they should not be removed without masking first. I think a lot of people like to stay - at least temporary - close to kernel mainline because they want to use the one or other feature. And then my workflow is always like this: If an ebuild is removed, it's time to also remove it from my installation and replace it with another version or an alternative. I usually do this during the masking phase. -- Regards, Kai Replies to list-only preferred.