Hello Pedro! On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:32:44PM +0000, Pedro M. wrote: > Florian Ernst escribió: > >On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 12:04:34PM +0000, Pedro M. wrote: > >>I suggest create the module kernel-image.last > >> > >>To upgrade the kernel to the last version. > >> > >>In apt-get install -kernel last > > > >|$ apt-cache show kernel-image-2.4-386 > >|[...] > >|Description: Linux kernel image for version 2.4 on 386. > >| This package will always depend on the latest 2.4 kernel image available > >| for 386. > > > >...and similar other packages. > > > A looooooooooooottttttttttt of packages. I suggest offer one simple, > easy to remember and to type way. |fernst@live:~$ apt-cache search kernel-image-2.4- | wc -l |7 Not that much, at least in my eyes. YMMV. > >>the apt-get would install the last kernel image for the default system > >>architecture (i.e. I would detect if it's a i386X architecture and would > >>download the last kernel module for this architecture ). > > > >As the architecture of your box shouldn't change _that_ often some > >manual work / scripting might be acceptable, thereafter one could > >install one of the packages mentioned above. > > > Yes, but you cannot include a simple command in a tutorial or guide to > do it.... Well, determine your 'architecture', meaning -386 / -586tsc / -686 / -k6 / -k7 (possibly SMP) on IA32, you _should_ know better than any script, install appropriate kernel-image, lean back. If the user doesn't know this 'architecture', -386 (one size fits all) ought to be enough, (s)he probably won't _notice_ any speed differences at all. It looks like you are suggesting kernel-image-dwimt (do what I mean to). As I said, it should be possible / acceptable, but I see a huge simplicity/danger-tradeoff. > >>A stept forward in simplicity and easy of use. > > > >...and possibly dangerous: > >What should be the 'latest' kernel? Automatic upgrade from 2.N.xx to > >2.N+2.0 once this is available? Or even to 2.N+1.xx as this is > >'latest'? > > > It would include the intermediate steps ( if user says nothing in an > option). So, looking back, Debian users would have installed 2.5.69(?), possibly booted into it, possibly tried to do daily work, possibly failed...? Or would have automatically installed 2.6.0-preX? The lists are still full of people who have / had problems during the upgrade to 2.6.x... Well, don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to stop you, but I personally don't like the idea that much. If a user still wants to risk shooting him-/herself in the foot, then that's ok for me, but I wouldn't like to see Debian supporting this. YMMV. Cheers, Flo PS: This is a mailing list, please don't CC people unless they specifically ask for it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature