That was a good point, that made me re-download the latest netboot tar ball
from upstream and extracted the kernel from that, made comparison against
the new and existing kernels. although both were dated same
timestamps/sizes, but they actually differ!
Went ahead and ran an actual install, ta-da, the kernel matched and it went
through~!
That was awesome! Thanks for the hint and tips, very much appreciated!!!

Cheers.
Mizuki

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:23 PM, David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Wed 20 Jun 2018 at 19:03:33 (-0400), mizuki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 17:43 David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > > On Wed 20 Jun 2018 at 11:31:20 (-0400), mizuki wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Apologies for my lousy copy and paste, it is Debian (not Ubuntu), see
> > > > attached screenshot.
> > > > When this error, drop to a shell and run 'uname -r' returned
> > > *4.9.0-4.amd64*
> > > > ,
> > > > I believe the kernel in Archive Mirror is higher 4.9.0-6. That's why
> this
> > > > is likely a bug to me.
> > >
> > > What is the file modification timestamp on the image you downloaded?
> >
> > The image dated at Mar 4th 2018  which is the latest avaialble at
> upstream
> > ftp.debian.org (file sizes, time stamps all matched with the upstream).
>
> My guess is that somehow you used a stale file when you got that
> message. There are several ways to do that accidentally.
>
> I've downloaded the .iso from the address you posted, and it has the
> timestamp you just reported; to be precise (and precision helps):
>  40894464 Mar  4 13:38 /home/debian/mini.iso
>
> Booting from this .iso reports this kernel version on VC2:
>
> ~ # uname -a
> Linux (none) 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.82-1+deb9u3 (2018-03-02)
> x86_64 GNU/Linux
> ~ #
>
> which should be compatible with the current version running the same
> machine:
>
> $ uname -a
> Linux wren 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.88-1+deb9u1 (2018-05-07) x86_64
> GNU/Linux
> $
>
> Perhaps you could reproduce your "bug" as before, and report the full
> line as above.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
>

Reply via email to