Am Sat, 11 Jun 2011 23:07:00 -0400
schrieb "Joe(theWordy)Philbrook" :
> Actually It's been a long time since I had actual boot failures with
> Arch... And if memory serves it wasn't the updated kernels fault,
> though I no longer remember what I'd done...
You see, those cases in which a kernel up
It would appear that on Jun 11, Heiko Baums did say:
> Am Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:40:36 -0400
> schrieb "Joe(theWordy)Philbrook" :
>
> > OK so lets see if I understand... I already maintain a manually
> > configured grub legacy partition where each of my installed Linux
> > have both a chainloader m
On Friday 10 June 2011 20:44:16 Mauro Santos wrote:
> Arch users have lived without the last good known kernel so far and
> without an -lts kernel until recently. IMHO it is a lot more advisable
> to have an install cd/usb, or even better, a custom install in some
> external media that can be used
Am Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:40:36 -0400
schrieb "Joe(theWordy)Philbrook" :
> OK so lets see if I understand... I already maintain a manually
> configured grub legacy partition where each of my installed Linux
> have both a chainloader menu entry to whichever grub that Linux has
> installed to /boot on
It would appear that on Jun 11, Heiko Baums did say:
> Am Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:21:17 -0400
> schrieb "Joe(theWordy)Philbrook" :
>
> > Mind specifying for an idiot like me just which package-file-names
> > I'd need to use with pacman -U to restore the previous kernel,
> > complete with it's module
Am Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:21:17 -0400
schrieb "Joe(theWordy)Philbrook" :
> Mind specifying for an idiot like me just which package-file-names
> I'd need to use with pacman -U to restore the previous kernel,
> complete with it's modules?
Try `ls /var/cache/pacman/pkg/kernel26*` and I guess you will f
Am Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:06:21 -0400
schrieb "Joe(theWordy)Philbrook" :
> That wouldn't be such a bad idea. And in fact I already do that with
> the kernel and initrd image. But I'm almost ashamed to admit that I
> don't have enough understanding of the modules to know how to
> preserve and when nee
It would appear that on Jun 10, Heiko Baums did say:
> Am Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:48:57 +0200
> schrieb Vic Demuzere :
>
> > Having multiple kernels is insane. I don't get why it's needed. There
> > is a live cd to rescue your system if needed.
>
> And the old kernel packages (every package) are sa
It would appear that on Jun 10, Robert Howard did say:
> Why not just copy the old kernel image, modules and initrd image somewhere
> by hand before you upgrade kernels. If we try to make this automated it
> isn't going to be kiss. I used to do this way back in the day by including
> the entire k
It would appear that on Jun 9, C Anthony Risinger did say:
> On Jun 9, 2011 5:50 PM, "Heiko Baums" wrote:
> > Am Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:36:21 -0500
> > schrieb C Anthony Risinger :
> >
> >> does this sound genius or completely insane? some insanely genius guy
> >> once said they are only separated b
Arch users have lived without the last good known kernel so far and
without an -lts kernel until recently. IMHO it is a lot more advisable
to have an install cd/usb, or even better, a custom install in some
external media that can be used to boot the system in case something
goes wrong or in case o
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>
>> what if we (optionally) stored the original images _inside_ the new
>> one? the new/bad kernel would boot, and via some bootloader entry eg.
>> kernel param the new initcpio s
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Vic Demuzere wrote:
> On 10 June 2011 15:25, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>> Also, I wonder what happens if power is lost whilst pacman is installing a
>> new
>> kernel? I haven't tried this, but it wouldn't surprise me if the system
>> ended
>> up with a truncated
On 10 June 2011 15:25, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> Also, I wonder what happens if power is lost whilst pacman is installing a new
> kernel? I haven't tried this, but it wouldn't surprise me if the system ended
> up with a truncated kernel that wouldn't boot. That's a bug right there,
> although it
On Friday 10 June 2011 14:03:32 Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2011 04:26:21 Robert Howard wrote:
> > Why not just copy the old kernel image, modules and initrd image
> > somewhere by hand before you upgrade kernels. If we try to make this
> > automated it isn't going to be kiss. I used t
On Friday 10 June 2011 14:05:14 Yaro Kasear wrote:
> Another agreement from me here. Also, may I also add that a great deal of
> Arch users have /boot in a (tiny) partition to start with and can't really
> KEEP that much stuff in there? Keeping old kernels would definitely screw
> their systems up
On Friday, June 10, 2011 05:48:57 Vic Demuzere wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2011 12:43 PM, "Martti Kühne" wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM, C Anthony Risinger
>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > what if we (optionally) stored the original images _inside_ the new
> > > one? the new/bad kernel would boo
On Friday, June 10, 2011 04:26:21 Robert Howard wrote:
> Why not just copy the old kernel image, modules and initrd image somewhere
> by hand before you upgrade kernels. If we try to make this automated it
> isn't going to be kiss. I used to do this way back in the day by including
> the entire ker
On Thursday, June 09, 2011 21:22:50 Timothy L. wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 2011 5:50 PM, "Heiko Baums" wrote:
> > > Am Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:36:21 -0500
> > >
> > > schrieb C Anthony Risinger :
> > >> does this sound genius or completely insane?
Am Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:48:57 +0200
schrieb Vic Demuzere :
> Having multiple kernels is insane. I don't get why it's needed. There
> is a live cd to rescue your system if needed.
And the old kernel packages (every package) are saved in pacman's cache
(usually /var/cache/pacman/pkg) anyway until pa
On Jun 10, 2011 12:43 PM, "Martti Kühne" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM, C Anthony Risinger
wrote:
>
> > what if we (optionally) stored the original images _inside_ the new
> > one? the new/bad kernel would boot, and via some bootloader entry eg.
> > kernel param the new initcpio s
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:36 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> what if we (optionally) stored the original images _inside_ the new
> one? the new/bad kernel would boot, and via some bootloader entry eg.
> kernel param the new initcpio script would kexec the old kernel, with
> another (different)
Why not just copy the old kernel image, modules and initrd image somewhere
by hand before you upgrade kernels. If we try to make this automated it
isn't going to be kiss. I used to do this way back in the day by including
the entire kernel version in the pkgver and giving the images longer names.
I
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:17 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:25 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>>
>> ... though i could very well be missing something obvious, certainly
>> wouldn't be the first time ...
>
> ... after 1/2 implementing this i suddenly realized a painful tru
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:25 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>
> ... though i could very well be missing something obvious, certainly
> wouldn't be the first time ...
... after 1/2 implementing this i suddenly realized a painful truth
that's probably already been voiced ...
the kernel is *long-sinc
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2011 5:50 PM, "Heiko Baums" wrote:
> > Am Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:36:21 -0500
> > schrieb C Anthony Risinger :
> >
> >> does this sound genius or completely insane? some insanely genius guy
> >> once said they are only separated by
On Jun 9, 2011 5:50 PM, "Heiko Baums" wrote:
> Am Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:36:21 -0500
> schrieb C Anthony Risinger :
>
>> does this sound genius or completely insane? some insanely genius guy
>> once said they are only separated by a fine line ...
>
> Sounds completely insane.
ook ... and ... why?
Am Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:36:21 -0500
schrieb C Anthony Risinger :
> does this sound genius or completely insane? some insanely genius guy
> once said they are only separated by a fine line ...
Sounds completely insane.
Heiko
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:36 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> 2011/6/9 Joe(theWordy)Philbrook :
>>
>> This is the kind of thing that caused me to become a ‘multi-Linux
>> distribution’,
>> ‘multi-boot’ kind of guy in the first place. When an upgrade «or my own
>> dumb mistakes» break my system I li
2011/6/9 Joe(theWordy)Philbrook :
>
> This is the kind of thing that caused me to become a ‘multi-Linux
> distribution’,
> ‘multi-boot’ kind of guy in the first place. When an upgrade «or my own
> dumb mistakes» break my system I like being able to simply reboot something
> else and finish anythin
It would appear that on Jun 9, Yaro Kasear did say:
> On Thursday, June 09, 2011 05:31:06 Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 June 2011 00:04:09 Heiko Baums wrote:
> > > schrieb Oon-Ee Ng :
> > > > Such a patch would also have to copy the modules (which aren't under
> > > > kernel26's 'pur
On Thursday 09 June 2011 14:07:45 Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On Thursday, June 09, 2011 05:31:06 Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> > Well, it's happened to me, and it *could* happen to you. Better to
> > prevent the situation, don't you think?
>
> Again: Purpose of fallback image and lts kernel. Jacking up /bo
On Thursday, June 09, 2011 05:31:06 Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2011 00:04:09 Heiko Baums wrote:
> > schrieb Oon-Ee Ng :
> > > Such a patch would also have to copy the modules (which aren't under
> > > kernel26's 'purview'). For example, nvidia gets upgraded on a major
> > > versi
On Thursday 09 June 2011 00:04:09 Heiko Baums wrote:
> schrieb Oon-Ee Ng :
> > Such a patch would also have to copy the modules (which aren't under
> > kernel26's 'purview'). For example, nvidia gets upgraded on a major
> > version kernel update, the old kernel which has been renamed doesn't
> > 'w
Am Thu, 9 Jun 2011 06:36:08 +0800
schrieb Oon-Ee Ng :
> Such a patch would also have to copy the modules (which aren't under
> kernel26's 'purview'). For example, nvidia gets upgraded on a major
> version kernel update, the old kernel which has been renamed doesn't
> 'work' graphically anymore.
J
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 08 June 2011 15:45:21 Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
>>> > If you want this, implement it! I have seen some discussio
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 June 2011 15:45:21 Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
>> > If you want this, implement it! I have seen some discussions about it and
>> > it always tend to users wanting feature
On Wednesday 08 June 2011 15:45:21 Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > If you want this, implement it! I have seen some discussions about it and
> > it always tend to users wanting feature X or Y, but didn't commit to it.
> > protip: iirc there are s
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 06/08/2011 04:12 PM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
>>
>> I would really like to the kernel that is being replaced kept as a backup.
>> If
>> the latest kernel breaks your hardware, or something else goes wrong, I'd
>> like
>> to have the opt
On 06/08/2011 04:12 PM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
I would really like to the kernel that is being replaced kept as a backup. If
the latest kernel breaks your hardware, or something else goes wrong, I'd like
to have the option of using the kernel that was just replaced, because it's
known to work.
I would really like to the kernel that is being replaced kept as a backup. If
the latest kernel breaks your hardware, or something else goes wrong, I'd like
to have the option of using the kernel that was just replaced, because it's
known to work.
I wouldn't want more than one old version of t
On 06/06/2011 09:17 PM, Yaro Kasear wrote:
On Monday, June 06, 2011 11:34:53 Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Tavian Barnes
wrote:
On 6 June 2011 10:02, KESHAV P.R. wrote:
Hi all,
Since the next kernel will be 3.0 , the kernel26 naming is
meaningless from th
I'd say it would be better to have only one current and one lts kernel
(or whatever it ends up being called).
Having multiple older versions of the same package is not what it said
in the can, arch uses the latest stable versions of packages and not the
latest plus some number of older ones.
--
On Monday, June 06, 2011 11:34:53 Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Tavian Barnes
>
> wrote:
> > On 6 June 2011 10:02, KESHAV P.R. wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> Since the next kernel will be 3.0 , the kernel26 naming is
> >> meaningless from the next kernel. I think th
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Tavian Barnes wrote:
> I have kernel26-lts installed as a backup kernel, and this is all
> that's really necessary for rolling back broken kernel updates. I've
> been bitten by a BTRFS bug once and rolled back with -lts no problem.
> -1 from me on keeping multiple
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Tavian Barnes
wrote:
> On 6 June 2011 10:02, KESHAV P.R. wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Since the next kernel will be 3.0 , the kernel26 naming is
>> meaningless from the next kernel. I think this is also a good time to
>> consider implementing versioned kernel inst
On 6 June 2011 10:02, KESHAV P.R. wrote:
> Hi all,
> Since the next kernel will be 3.0 , the kernel26 naming is
> meaningless from the next kernel. I think this is also a good time to
> consider implementing versioned kernel install. Agreed arch has a
> policy of 1 package per software in
47 matches
Mail list logo
