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

[atweiden]

@CameronNemo and I have been chatting about pinebookpro-kernel. 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

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

[paper42]

I think the pinebookpro-kernel maintainer (who is the most qualified to answer this) already explained it in this thread, am I wrong? #41062

[CameronNemo]

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:

• Package request: Brave #5444 (comment)
• Steam: Easy Anti-Cheat does not work under Void #41388 (comment)
• New package: linux-surface 5.13.13 #32823 (comment)

[sgn]

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

[github-actions]

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.