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

autoupdate of kernel



Okay,
This may be a stupid question, but I run unstable for my kids' box (for
obvious reasons, thanks Ben & Crew from debjr) and I've upgraded once from
the bf24 kernel to 2.4.20-3 and reconfig'd.  Everything seems to work fine,
for now.  Some sounds seem to be missing in some programs, but you sort of
start to gloss over the seeming anomalies when using unstable (tux paint
lost its sound one day, I was actually sort of *glad* for that :-).

My concern is that I hadn't updated for a few weeks (too busy to get around
to it...won't let that happen again...arrg 45 minutes of DLs) and it wants
to update to 2.4.20-9.  The update isn't a problem, really, because after I
understood that I only had to add one little line to lilo to make the
original update work, the thing went and installed itself and corrected
everything necessary (thanks to dselect (Ian/Wichert), when everything else
gets weird, I can count on you to show me what's going on behind the gui)
and I just ran lilo when it was done and it added everything for me...forget
all this recompile stuff, it works fine for me.  I tend to go to the
simplest answer and get things over with and done as long as the result
seems equivalent.

The problem is that it's telling me that it's thinking about doing something
with the module list and while I want to keep the system current, I don't
want to go through and reconfigure it again now.  The last time I had to
futz with the drivers for a bit, and I have finals this week...

So, experts, does it blow away my system config and is there a way to simply
make it play nice if it does (like can I copy the module list or whatever
the thing is it wants to write over and then copy it back in and have it
work? something like that)...

Sorry for the lack of brevity, but I do have to get my thanks in there...I
think my kids like linux more than I do...and tia for any assistance you'd
like to offer.  Thank you for your time.

-russ



Reply to: