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

Re: hangs with 2.6.32 on debian squeeze?



Γιώργος Πάλλας wrote:
I'm experiencing strange system hangs after squeeze was upgraded from 2.6.30-2 to 2.6.32.
That happens on two systems, where one is 686 and the other is amd64.

Anybody else with overall strange behaviour with the new kernel?

So, I reinstalled the 2.6.30-2 kernel which prematurely I admit, I purged.
Now for a couple of modules which I need, I need also to install the headers but it doesn't seem to work. It says: linux-headers-2.6.30-2-686: Depends: linux-kbuild-2.6.30 which is a virtual package.

How can I get over that?

Thanks!

G.

aris:/home/encmp/gpall# aptitude install linux-headers-2.6.30-2-686
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
The following packages are BROKEN:
 linux-headers-2.6.30-2-686
The following NEW packages will be installed:
 linux-headers-2.6.30-2-common{a}
0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 8 not upgraded.
Need to get 4,029kB of archives. After unpacking 25.6MB will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
linux-headers-2.6.30-2-686: Depends: linux-kbuild-2.6.30 which is a virtual package.
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

Keep the following packages at their current version:
linux-headers-2.6.30-2-686 [Not Installed]

Score is -9881

Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?]
No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 8 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.


Hi,
I have installed linux-headers-2.6.30-2-686 and linux-kbuild-2.6.30 in Squeeze. I can't recall whether I have installed through Synaptic or manually download linux-kbuild-2.6.30.
http://packages.debian.org/lenny-backports/linux-kbuild-2.6.30

Maybe it is not the best way but it work's in my case.
--
Bye,
Goran Dobosevic


Reply to: