Re: Kernel problem?
David Wright composed on 2018-01-11 12:52 (UTC-0600):
> On Wed 10 Jan 2018 at 19:48:57 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
>> deloptes composed on 2018-01-11 01:12 (UTC+0100):
>> > David Wright wrote:
>> >>> It seemed to install vmlinuz-4.9.0-5-686-pae (and associated config and
>> >>> image files, etc) in place of 4.9.0-4-686-pae versions. Now the system
>> >> [spaces inserted] ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ really? It's a different package so
>> >> it should install alongside the old one.
>> > no, this is one and the same package - just a different debian revision - so
>> > the previous gets replaced AFAIK
> Sorry, but evidently you don't.
Who didn't get what?
>> I think you missed this same thread post from yesterday:
> I'm not sure that would help. The first half of that post showed
> a very idiosyncratic /boot listing which seems to be customised
> to support your own multibooting setup. I'm not sure whether it
> would help or confuse the OP.
I expected it to. Here's the same listing with nonessential lines excised:
-rw-r--r-- 1 17388979 Jan 9 17:45 initrd.img-4.9.0-4-686-pae
-rw-r--r-- 1 17392772 Jan 9 17:44 initrd.img-4.9.0-5-686-pae
-rw-r--r-- 1 3643920 Dec 22 19:39 vmlinuz-4.9.0-4-686-pae
-rw-r--r-- 1 3645296 Jan 4 06:12 vmlinuz-4.9.0-5-686-pae
Clearly, 4.9.0-4 and 4.9.0-5 pae kernels are present, the very kernels in the OP
that, as I read, deloptes subsequently claimed were "one and the same package"
(could not coexist).
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/