Re: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question
[ message reformatted for easier reading ]
[ Please don't top post -- thank you ;-) ]
> > > Somehow the Debian Developers don't see this as a problem (having to
> > > manually install the meta package). I reported this in March [1] when
> > > it appeared to me to be a problem many users would have since the meta
> > > package, kernel-image-2.6-686, was /not/ installed in the default sarge
> > > installation.
> > >
> > > I hope Etch will install the meta package by default.
> >
> >Why should it? Many people prefer to manually choose their kernels, as
> >this is not something you can upgrade at any given time. It is not a
> >problem either way - installing or removing a meta package is not that
> >hard, is it?
> >
> Great, thank you for your help.
>
> I knew there was something I was missing.
Well -- if you use GRUB as the bootloader - and one installs this 'meta' kernel
package (kernel-image-2.6-686)...of which I was unaware of until today.
!! BEWARE !!
Whatever customized Boot options you've placed WITHIN THE CONFINED "AUTOMAGIC
KERNEL LIST" AREA, then GRUB's /menu.lst file's Boot options will be
automatically REMOVED. I know from past experience, but I forgot :(
*Fortunately* though, I only had 1 boot option in my Kernel line, that I easily
replaced by editing /boot/grub/menu.lst.
Please read ALL the comments in the /boot/grub/menu.lst file concerning this
notification of changes when upgrading;
=========A Snippet Only=================
[...]
### BEGIN AUTOMAGIC KERNELS LIST
## lines between the AUTOMAGIC KERNELS LIST markers will be modified
## by the debian update-grub script except for the default options below
[...]
=================================
I recall a very heated discussion a few months back when someone's GRUB file
got updated and wiped the guy's Boot options (he had many) -- and he was
rightfully told (IMHO) that he should've read the comments, and learned more
about GRUB and it's AUTOMAGIC KERNEL section - but he did bring up a few good
points, but I can't recall off-hand what those were ATM. The thread got long
too.
PLUS;
I also ended up with 2 more Boot lines (though this is not necessarily a bad
thing IMHO),
I had originally only the LAST two at the bottom, before I installed this
meta-package;
===============================
## ## End Default Options ##
title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-3-686
root (hd1,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-3-686 root=/dev/hdc1 ro acpi=force
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-3-686
savedefault
boot
title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-3-686 (recovery mode)
root (hd1,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-3-686 root=/dev/hdc1 ro single
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-3-686
savedefault
boot
title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-2-386
root (hd1,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-2-386 root=/dev/hdc1 ro
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-2-386
savedefault
boot
title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel 2.6.8-2-386 (recovery mode)
root (hd1,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.8-2-386 root=/dev/hdc1 ro single
initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.8-2-386
savedefault
boot
===============================
Was any aspect of this occurence caused by the fact that I did _not _ install
the kernel-image-2.6-/386/ meta-package, as opposed to kernel-image-2.6-/686/
??
I checked using 'apt-cache show kernel-image-2.6-686' and it mentions many i386
items (and now after comparing the 2 pkgs, I guess tere are _some_ small diffs
between them - they are cartainly diff pkgs, with diff md5sums, etc). I guess I
should've dug deeper for further info before actually installing.
Oh well - for me, I'm using Debian Sarge on a PII, so I suppose it doesn't
matter which (386/686) one I use. Everything seems to be working fine. I
Updated && Upgraded prior to installing the kernel-image-2.6-686, after which I
took a peek at /boot/grub/menu.lst -- then after editing it, to add my one boot
option (acpi=force), I rebooted (and chose the 686 image) and all seems well so
far.
Comments gladly accepted ;-)
Regards
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Reply to: