Re: Question about the new kernel with PAE (Wheezy) - Report
On 2011-06-22 13:21 +0200, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:06:33 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>>> But just out of curiosity, what's the raw logic behind the routine that
>>> decided to install a PAE kernel instead another one? Why the installer
>>> took such option? :-?
>>
>> It didn't.
>
> Well, it did.
Sorry, I thought you meant the Debian installer which originally
installed your system.
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> linux-image-2.6.39-2-686-pae (2.6.39-2)
> linux-image-686-pae (2.6.39+35.1)
> (...)
> The following packages will be upgraded:
> (...)
> linux-image-686 (2.6.38+34 => 2.6.39+35.1)
>
> It decided to install the PAE kernel instead the 486 (non-PAE). Why? As I
> hadn't installed a "linux-image-2.6-686-pae" previously I'd expected a
> non-PAE update, and given that "-686" was not available, "-486" seemed
> the most suitable selection.
>
>> The old -686 kernels from squeeze and earlier do not support
>> or need PAE.
>
> Yes, and that's why I wonder why the update routine decided to go the PAE
> way :-)
Would you prefer that the linux-image-686 metapackage
- depends on the -486 kernel, losing SMP support for the vast amount of
machines that have PAE support and multiple cores?
- is dropped entirely, leaving you with an old kernel and no way to
automatically install a newer one until you manually choose one of the
linux-image-486 or linux-image-686-pae packages?
Neither of these options seems to be very good.
Sven
Reply to: