Re: concurrent installs of previous + current kernels
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:59:19PM EST, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:44 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
> >> Unless there's some pre or post magic that goes on, these are the
> >> same files which are currently owned by the pre-existing (debian
> >> release 17) kernel package:
> > This is odd.
> > I keep an up-to-date ubuntu partition on the side, which I boot into
> > every now and then, and every couple of weeks or so, the update
> > manager installs a new version of the kernel. I can't look now but I
> > believe I have something like two or three different versions of
> > 2.6.31 at present. Say, 2.6.31-15, 2.6.31-16, and 2.6.31-17,
> > complete with modules, headers and all. There would be more, if I
> > hadn't removed a few older versions manually to keep my grub menu to
> > somewhat manageable lengths.
> As Boyd pointed out the versions you're refering to above are all
> different from one another, and can coexist. However as Stefan
> mentioned, sub-revisions of the same kernel cannot.
Are you saying that my linux-image-15, -16, and -17 are revisions and
that we then have 'sub-revisions'..??
> In my case, any sub-revision past 17 on the latest stable kernel
> causes the system to hang on boot. Tracking down the problem will be
> easier now that I don't have to jump through too many hoops to try
> later sub-revisions.
Well that's what I'm saying.. On that ubuntu partition of mine, when the
update manager, I think they call it, installed 2.6.31.-17, it left
2.6.31-16 and 2.6.31-15 alone - regrettably, since this is a sacrificial
system I have on the side, and I would much rather it got rid of earlier
sub-versions.
> > Not much help, I guess, but maybe worth taking another look at the
> > manuals.
> Oddly, there's not a whole lot of discussion about this (unless I'm
> using the wrong search terms).
That's something else I thought was odd. As you said, if the new sub
version hangs and the previous one worked but has now been obliterated,
I would have expected a few people losing their termper over this.
Anyway, I cannot get involved in any kind of testing relative to this
issue at the moment, but I'll be very interested if you do find a
solution.
Oh, and please try to convince your mailer to wrap long lines, at
something like column 72, if you could.
Thanks,
CJ
Reply to: