[ISSUE] [Discussion] Should the pinebookpro-kernel template be retired, or expanded?

[ISSUE] [Discussion] Should the pinebookpro-kernel template be retired, or expanded?

[atweiden]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 817 bytes --]

New issue by atweiden on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/42333

Description:
@CameronNemo and I have been chatting about [pinebookpro-kernel](https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/41062#issuecomment-1434123591). In summary:

- An argument could be made to retire the pinebookpro-kernel template
- An argument could be made to expand the pinebookpro-kernel template to include several of the more modern Pinebook Pro patches designed by Manjaro (the semi-official distribution of the Pinebook Pro)
- The latest Manjaro patches for Pinebook Pro have been ported to Arch Linux ARM at [SvenKiljan/archlinuxarm-pbp-packages](https://github.com/SvenKiljan/archlinuxarm-pbp-packages)

I’m interested in knowing what the Void community thinks of either option.

Re: [Discussion] Should the pinebookpro-kernel template be retired, or expanded?

[paper42]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 332 bytes --]

New comment by paper42 on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/42333#issuecomment-1435268177

Comment:
I think the pinebookpro-kernel maintainer (who is the most qualified to answer this) already explained it in this thread, am I wrong? https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/41062

Re: [Discussion] Should the pinebookpro-kernel template be retired, or expanded?

[CameronNemo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 488 bytes --]

New comment by CameronNemo on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/42333#issuecomment-1435374061

Comment:
If others would like to weigh in, that would be appreciated.

Some previous discussion in the Void project about patches / deviating from upstream that generally applies:

* https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/5444#issuecomment-578611324
* https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/41388#issuecomment-1369403398

Re: [Discussion] Should the pinebookpro-kernel template be retired, or expanded?

[CameronNemo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 569 bytes --]

New comment by CameronNemo on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/42333#issuecomment-1435374061

Comment:
If others would like to weigh in, that would be appreciated.

Some previous discussion in the Void project about patches / deviating from upstream that generally applies:

* https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/5444#issuecomment-578611324
* https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/41388#issuecomment-1369403398
* https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/32823#issuecomment-914676964

Re: [Discussion] Should the pinebookpro-kernel template be retired, or expanded?

[sgn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 281 bytes --]

New comment by sgn on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/42333#issuecomment-1435451450

Comment:
If Debian, postmarketOS can make generic kernel works on PBP, I think we should drop pinebookpro-kernel. Just as same as other modded kernel.

Re: [Discussion] Should the pinebookpro-kernel template be retired, or expanded?

[github-actions]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 293 bytes --]

New comment by github-actions[bot] on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/42333#issuecomment-1555421420

Comment:
Issues become stale 90 days after last activity and are closed 14 days after that.  If this issue is still relevant bump it or assign it.

Re: [ISSUE] [CLOSED] [Discussion] Should the pinebookpro-kernel template be retired, or expanded?

[github-actions]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 820 bytes --]

Closed issue by atweiden on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/42333

Description:
@CameronNemo and I have been chatting about [pinebookpro-kernel](https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/41062#issuecomment-1434123591). In summary:

- An argument could be made to retire the pinebookpro-kernel template
- An argument could be made to expand the pinebookpro-kernel template to include several of the more modern Pinebook Pro patches designed by Manjaro (the semi-official distribution of the Pinebook Pro)
- The latest Manjaro patches for Pinebook Pro have been ported to Arch Linux ARM at [SvenKiljan/archlinuxarm-pbp-packages](https://github.com/SvenKiljan/archlinuxarm-pbp-packages)

I’m interested in knowing what the Void community thinks of either option.