Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:13:42AM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> I've had another thought, which was spurred by the System.map discussion;
> and some people are probably going to hate it because it duplicates some of
> the effort of having a package management system in the first place.
> The grub package doesn't ever install itself to /boot, it requires the admin
> to copy the binaries from /usr/lib after an upgrade (or my memory is totally
> flawed). It wouldn't be so difficult to rotate the previous (good) kernel
> and associated files and replace them with the new kernel.
> An update-kernel script which ran after installation, and again at boot
> time, could check to make sure the latest kernel was in place and that ones
> bootloader could find it, and that the previous kernel was also accessible
> to the bootloader.
Maybe. I'm open to try that as long as it doesn't imply adding extra binary
packages (which is one of the points in my package).
Btw, as a grub co-maintainer, I think the idea sounds nice for grub. Although
I'm not sure if it's already implemented (update-grub?). Anyway, ask Jason ;)
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
-- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)