Kernel Header and Image Naming Convention

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at
Wed Apr 17 15:18:46 UTC 2013

On 04/17/2013 06:28 AM, dick.swift00 at wrote:
> Hello:
> I suggest that the kernel header and image naming convention should
> follow suite with naming convention.  Currently all official
> Ubuntu kernel headers and images only follow major release naming and do
> not reflect point release (e.g. Raring is currently at 3.8.0-18).  I
> propose that kernels headers and images should be named in this fashion:
> 0.1 - Release candidates (e.g. = 3.8 RC1)
> 0 - Stable release (e.g. 3.8.0 = 3.8.0)
> 1 - Stable point release (e.g. 3.8.1 = 3.8.1)
> Please consider this proposal for added clarity and accuracy as well as
> standardization across the Linux computing community.
> Thank you for your consideration!
> Travis

Specifying the version as you suggest would be disingenuous since these
kernels are _not_ the same as the stable releases. Ubuntu kernels are
rebased against stable releases only through the development cycle, with
many patches on top of the stable tag. Once the final release is made
the master branch is never rebased again. While stable updates (post
release) are usually applied, we sometimes make patch decisions that are
counter to the stable releases.

So, the best one could say is that Ubuntu kernels are only loosely based
on upstream stable. You'd have to examine the changelog to know exactly
what goes into a particular kernel.

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at

More information about the kernel-team mailing list