On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 07:51 +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: > Package: linux-image-686 > > If we are going to end up with -486, things could be smoother. > > First it would be great if we didn't need to download the big .deb only > to find out we can't use it... OK, never mind that.
There is no way for the installation script of a package to trigger
installation of another package, so we must either declare a dependency
from linux-image-686 to linux-image-686-pae or prompt *all* users to
install a different meta-package. Since 686 is probably the most common
flavour on i386, and most of its users will be able to use 686-pae, I
think the dependency is the better of the two options. This could be
changed.
> Upon aptitude upgrade
> We see this six (6) times
!!
> │ This system requires a different kernel configuration
> │
> │
> │
> │ Debian's '686' kernel configuration has been replaced by the '686-pae'
> configuration, which uses PAE │
> │ (Physical Address Extension). However, the CPU in this system does not
> support PAE. │
> │
> │
> │ You should install linux-image-486 and remove linux-image-686 and/or
> linux-image-2.6-686 if they are │
> │ currently installed.
> And the grub etc. stuff gets run anyway:
Yes, this check is in the meta-package (linux-image-686) so the kernel
image package still gets installed. I was hesitant to put a check in
the kernel image package because there may be situations where it's
useful to install a kernel image that will not actually be run on the
same physical system.
> Now we attempt to do as told. Of course we dare not remove the running kernel.
>
> # aptitude install linux-image-486
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>
> linux-image-2.6.39-1-486{a} (D: linux-image-486, S: firmware-ipw2x00, S:
> firmware-linux-free, S: firmware-linux-nonfree, S: firmware-realtek) (for
> linux-image-486)
> linux-image-486
> The following partially installed packages will be configured:
> linux-image-2.6-686 linux-image-686
> 0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
> Need to get 28.5 MB of archives. After unpacking 82.6 MB will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
>
> Here we get four more of the above banner.
>
> We also find we must purge linux-image-686 linux-image-2.6-686
> linux-image-2.6.39-1-686-pae linux-image-686-pae
I wonder why you had both linux-image-686 and linux-image-2.6-686
installed. They are redundant with each other. Of course you would
need to remove both of them as they cannot be configured.
You don't *need* to remove the other packages to continue, but then they
have no use. So I agree the message could be improved.
> I.e., four packages, not just one or two as mentioned in the banner.
>
> We now get
> The link /vmlinuz.old is a damaged link
> Removing symbolic link vmlinuz.old
> You may need to re-run your boot loader
> The link /initrd.img.old is a damaged link
> Removing symbolic link initrd.img.old
> You may need to re-run your boot loader
These warnings are about compatibility with LILO and other dumb boot
loaders. I would love to get rid of the warnings, but so long as they
rely on these symlinks by default we can't reasonably do so.
Ben.
> Purging configuration files for linux-image-2.6.39-1-686-pae ...
> Examining /etc/kernel/postrm.d .
> run-parts: executing /etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs-tools 2.6.39-1-686-pae
> /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.39-1-686-pae
> run-parts: executing /etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-update-grub 2.6.39-1-686-pae
> /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.39-1-686-pae
>
> OK, it seems that got fixed, ls -l shows
> initrd.img -> /boot/initrd.img-2.6.39-1-486...
>
> OK, so it seems I finally made the transition. Just hope it boots...
>
>
>
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
