On Mon, 2016-06-27 at 13:39 +0300, Evgeny Kapun wrote: > On 27.06.2016 11:51, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Control: reassign -1 linux-base 4.3 > > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > > > On Mon, 2016-06-27 at 03:59 +0300, Evgeny Kapun wrote: > > > Package: linux-image-4.6.0-1-amd64 > > > Version: 4.6.2-2 > > > > > > When updating the package linux-image-4.6.0-1-amd64 from version > > > 4.6.2-1 to version 4.6.2-2, post-install script printed this: > > > > > > I: /vmlinuz.old is now a symlink to boot/vmlinuz-4.6.0-1-amd64 > > > I: /initrd.img.old is now a symlink to boot/initrd.img-4.6.0-1-amd64 > > > > > > After that, both /{vmlinuz,initrd.img} and /{vmlinuz,initrd.img}.old > > > point to the same kernel version, 4.6.0-1-amd64. Aren't these .old > > > symlinks supposed to point to the previous version? > > > > If only one version is installed, both pairs of links will be pointed > > to it. Previously, one or both pairs could be left broken. > > > > Is there another version installed? > > > > Ben. > > > > No, there is only one version installed. Previously, there was only > one pair of links in this case (the .old links were removed). I think > that the old behavior is better because with the current behavior, > bootloaders which use these symlinks (such as LILO) will create two > menu entries for the same kernel version, which is confusing. When > there is only one pair, such bootloaders will only create one entry. Doesn't lilo fail if a file specified in its configuration is missing? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Humour is the best antidote to reality.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part