Nicolas Pillot:
>
> But i just noticed the kernel was still the same (2.2.20), although
> there are newer 2.4.X and 2.6.X kernels out there. So my questions are
> :
>
> - is it worth an upgrade ?
If you don't have a problem: no. You *may* have problems with udev or
something like that (ever rebooted after the upgrade to sarge?), but
otherwise I think all should be fine.
On the other hand: if there are local users on this machine who you do
not trust, upgrading to the latest 2.4 kernel might be a good idea (from
a security standpoint).
> - is it as simple as an apt-get install kernel-image-xxx ?
Yes.
> - P75 is i586. does apt-get choose the right architecture ?
> if not, should i select 2.4.x-x-386 or 2.4.x-x-586tsc (named
> "Pentium-Classic") ?
> I'd say the later.
You pick the architecture automatically by specifying a package name
that includes the architecture.
> - finally, there is no 2.6.x-x-586tsc. If i want 2.6, do i have to go "back"
> to i386 ? Would this be a problem "performance" wise ?
I don't think so.
> In this case,
> would it be a possible option to compile the latest kernel on the 586 ?
Sure, just grab the corresponding source package (or vanilla sources
from kernel.org) and compile it. You don't even need to compile it on
the target machine, since passing around a kernel-image-x.y.z.deb is
really easy.
> - i have no quick physical access on that machine and i'm planning to
> do the upgrade via ssh. Would there be any special pb ?
> - is it normal that "dpkg --get-selections \*" doesn't show me any
> kernel-image with the "install" status ?
I do not remember how woody handled these things but I think a default
install always contains a Debian kernel image package. But that might
have been removed.
J.
--
When I am at nightclubs I enjoy looking at other people and assessing
their imagined problems.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature