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

Re: dist-upgrade removing current kernel

Paul Yeatman(pyeatman@ucsd.edu) is reported to have said:
> Hi, I did some searching on this in the archive and found some stuff
> but nothing that fully satisfies me.  When a new minor 2.6 kernel
> revision, 2.6.17, was available for Etch, an "aptitude dist-upgrade"
> wanted to install this new kernel AND remove my 2.6.16 kernel revision
> (which understandably was my most recent kernel version and the one I
> was currently booted to).  I tried a few things to get aptitude to just
> leave my 2.6.16 kernel alone such as
> 	aptitude hold linux-image-2.6.16-2-k7
> but a "dist-upgrade" seemed to ignore/override this.  When I couldn't
> come up with a quick way to have it leave my 2.6.16 kernel alone, I
> eventually booted to a different kernel revision and let 'aptitude
> dist-upgrade' do as it wanted, ie. uninstall my 2.6.16 kernel revision.
> Now, I'm experiencing the identical situation with the recently
> released 2.6.18 kernel revision for Etch.  I'm perfectly happy with the
> package manager leaving my currently installed kernels alone while
> simultaneously adding newer kernel versions and releases.  If I want to
> remove old kernels at some point, I'll do so explicitely.  Anyone have
> any ideas for me?

Oh the Joys of aptitude.  Strangely, I just upgraded to 2.6.18 and it
_didn't_ try to remove my current 2.6.15.  Anyway, in your case I would
just bypass aptitude this time and do apt-get install kernel-U-want.

Or, I guess you could put the current kernel on hold and then try a 
aptitude install kernel-U-want.  I'm not too keen on aptitude as it
just tries to do to much and, IMHO, fails to deliver consistently.
I've just used apt for too long, I guess.


Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit
patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit
microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of

Reply to: