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

backporting 2.6.38 from unstable to squeeze




Hi,

If this is not the right mailing list for this question, please let me know which one is. Thanks.

I just compiled the 2.6.38 linux-image Debian package from source on squeeze, per the instructions in http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-common-tasks.html#s4.2.4.

I don't know if that was actually necessary, as the linux-image package from unstable seems to install directly. Regardless, both the backported and original linux-image packages have two dependencies which are not in squeeze. These are linux-base (>= 3~) and firmware-linux-free (>= 3~). See the apt-get error message below. The versions of these in squeeze are both 2.6.32-31. So, my main question is, is it safe to upgrade these ie. can I upgrade them without breaking my current 2.6.32 (default) kernel?

Also, I just tried to run 2.6.26 (still installed from when I was running lenny) but it crashed and dropped down to the initramfs prompt. I don't have the error message handy right now, but could get it. I just want to know if I am missing something obvious. Should 2.6.26 continue to work on squeeze without problems, or not?

Please CC me on any reply, I'm not subscribed. Thanks.

                                                          Regards, Faheem

orwell:/home/faheem# apt-get install linux-image-2.6.38-2-686-bigmem
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
linux-image-2.6.38-2-686-bigmem : Depends: linux-base (>= 3~) but 2.6.32-31 is to be installed Recommends: firmware-linux-free (>= 3~) but 2.6.32-31 is to be installed
E: Broken packages


Reply to: