Re: Repost-No Response-Fwd: Another APT Issue-Where Are The Linux-Images-SOLVED
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 02:49:50PM -0700, Leonard Chatagnier wrote:
>
>
> --- Wackojacko <wackojacko32@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > Leonard Chatagnier wrote:
> > > This should be an easy one but still no replys.
> > Please
> > > someone help me out on this.
> > >
> > > --- Leonard Chatagnier <lenc5570@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
> > >> From: Leonard Chatagnier <lenc5570@sbcglobal.net>
> > >> Subject: Another APT Issue-Where Are The
> > >> Linux-Images
> > >> To: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> > >>
> > >> I now have only 2.6.8 and 2.6.16 kernels in my
> > cache
> > >> file, while a short time ago I had from
> > 2.4.18-bf2.4
> > >> to 2.6.16 and everything in between. Aptitude
> > >> removed
> > >> a working installed 2.6.15 linux-image before I
> > >> could
> > >> blink and I would like to reinstall it but its
> > not
> > >> there. I did do an autoclean but didn't think
> > that
> > >> would remove all the linux-images and leave just
> > the
> > >> 2.6.8 and 2.6.16 in the cache. Would appreciate
> > >> anyone
> > >> telling me how to get all the kernel/linux-images
> > >> back
> > >> int my cache files so I can pick the one I want
> > >> instaled. Plz copy my email-not subscribed.
> > >>
> > >> Leonard Chatagnier
> > >> lenc5570@sbcglobal.net
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Leonard Chatagnier
> > > lenc5570@sbcglobal.net
> >
> > You dont say what version of debian you are running
> > but I assume its sid
> > as this is the only one that has 2.6.16 at the
> > moment. It would appear
> > you have installed some sort of meta package that
> > will always depend on
> > the latest kernel so it has correctly upgraded you
> > to 2.6.16.
> >
> I am using unstable but have not installed any meta
> packages envolving kernel or linux-images. dpkg -l |
> grep meta only shows metas for xorg, kde's, exim4,
> some libs and some wms. I have installed myself the
> 2.6.8-2-686, 2.6.15-1-686 and 2.6.16-1.686 images;
> aptitude auto-rmed the 2.6.15 kernel and left the
> other 2 in place.
>
> > The aptitude autoclean will have removed the old
> > debs because they are
> > no longer available in the unstable repository,
> > which I assume is all
> > you have in your sources.list.
> >
> Currently, yes. But, I did add etch back in and
> updated but no kernels except 2.6.8 and 2.6.16 and
> those metas you refered to. I'll add sarge and etch
> back in sources.list and retry just to be sure.
>
> > Try adding the testing repositories into your
> > sources list (copy your
> > existing lines for unstable/sid and change to
> > testing/etch) then do
> >
> > #aptitude update
> > #aptitude search linux-image-2.6.15
> > #aptitude install
> > linux-image-2.6.15-whatever-version-you-want
> >
> Roger
>
> > You may also consider removing the generic meta
> > package that caused this
> > kernel upgrade in the first place. It will probably
> > be called something
> > like *linux-image-2.6-your-arch*.
> >
> I looked real hard with wajig search, list, show and
> could not find any "linux-image-2.6-i???" packages
> installed. I know I didn't install one intentionally.
> Well, surprised me this time after adding etch back in
> again one more time and updating I found the 2.6.15
> images with wajig search kernel image but not with
> linux-image. did the 2.6.12 images go to stable as I
> don't see it in the listing. AAMF, I only see 2.4.27,
> 2.6.8, 2.6.15 and 2.6.16 images and I think there are
> many more than those listed. Anyway, issue solved for
> now. Thanks Wackojacko for your help.
Looks like you still want a mechanism for keeping specific versions of
specific packages in cache.
What I do is copy the .debs elsewhere, such as /usr/local/debs/
That way they stay around, at the cost of some duplicaiton.
Hmmm. Maybe a hard-link from /usr/local/debs/ to the .deb in tha cache?
That way when the cache file is deleted, the hard-link will still keep
that file intact. But then you might want to use something likd
/var/local/debs/ so that keep-directory resides on the same file-system
as the target of the hard-links. Soft-links (which cross file-systems)
won't work for this.
-- hendrik
Reply to: