[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Upgrading the kernel on a woody box




You would be much better off just building a new kernel on your on.

G



On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, rikiwarren wrote:

>Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:11:57 +0900
>From: rikiwarren <rikiwarren@yahoo.com>
>To: "debian-kde@lists.debian.org" <debian-kde@lists.debian.org>
>Subject: Upgrading the kernel on a woody box
>Resent-From: debian-kde@lists.debian.org
>
>OK, I'm new to debian, so I probably screwed up something simple. This is
>my second attempt to upgrade the kernel--it won't boot properly into the
>new 2.4.12 kernel (I also tried 2.4.9 several weeks ago--same result). I
>can still boot into my old kernel, however (2.2.19pre17)
>
>I've downloaded the kernel-image-2.4.12-686 (and the corresponding headers,
>source, and doc file)
>I double checked to make sure the initrd=/boot/initrd line was added to
>lilo.conf (I believe it was added automatically when I tried this the first
>time, but I could be wrong). It's like the third uncommented line in the
>file.
>I made sure the initrd link pointed to the correct (2.4.12) file.
>I made sure that the following were installed: devfds, initrd-tools,
>iptables, mkcramfs, libxml2, libxml2-dev and usbmgr.
>I added the following to my source.list:
>deb http://people.debian.org/~bunk/debian potato main
>deb-src http://people.debian.org/~bunk/debian potato main
>
>And I ran apt-get update then apt-get dist-upgrade.
>
>When I reboot, I get a lot of errors. They flash by fast--but this is the
>general gist.
>
>There was some error regarding partitions, cramfs and magic numbers.
>Then there are a ton of missing module messages.
>Then it tries to boot into X and fails--leaving me at a command line.
>
>I do have basic functionality from the command line. If I restart and boot
>into my old kernel, everything works.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>-Rich-
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>



Reply to: