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