On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 08:52:37PM +0200, Robert wrote:
> This was recently posted on #systemd-devel:
>
> "To make this clear, we expect that systemd and kernels are updated in
> lockstep. We explicitly do not support really old kernels with really
> new systemd. So far we had the focus to support
This was recently posted on #systemd-devel:
"To make this clear, we expect that systemd and kernels are updated in
lockstep. We explicitly do not support really old kernels with really
new systemd. So far we had the focus to support up to 2y old kernels
(which means 3.4 right now), but even that s
André Berger wrote:
* Hugo Vanwoerkom (2007-06-07):
André Berger wrote:
* Hugo Vanwoerkom (2007-06-05):
André Berger wrote:
Let me give you an example to illustrate what I would like to know:
Given, kernel 2.6.22 was out, and 2.6.21.3 was the latest previous
stable kernel. Is there a patch
* Hugo Vanwoerkom (2007-06-07):
> André Berger wrote:
> > * Hugo Vanwoerkom (2007-06-05):
> >> André Berger wrote:
> >>> Let me give you an example to illustrate what I would like to know:
> >>> Given, kernel 2.6.22 was out, and 2.6.21.3 was the latest previous
> >>> stable kernel. Is there a pat
André Berger wrote:
* Hugo Vanwoerkom (2007-06-05):
André Berger wrote:
Let me give you an example to illustrate what I would like to know:
Given, kernel 2.6.22 was out, and 2.6.21.3 was the latest previous
stable kernel. Is there a patch against 2.6.21.3, for an easy upgrade
to 2.6.22?
Are
* Hugo Vanwoerkom (2007-06-05):
> André Berger wrote:
> > Let me give you an example to illustrate what I would like to know:
> > Given, kernel 2.6.22 was out, and 2.6.21.3 was the latest previous
> > stable kernel. Is there a patch against 2.6.21.3, for an easy upgrade
> > to 2.6.22?
>
> Are yo
André Berger wrote:
Let me give you an example to illustrate what I would like to know:
Given, kernel 2.6.22 was out, and 2.6.21.3 was the latest previous
stable kernel. Is there a patch against 2.6.21.3, for an easy upgrade
to 2.6.22?
Are you referring to Debian packages or kernels from www.
Let me give you an example to illustrate what I would like to know:
Given, kernel 2.6.22 was out, and 2.6.21.3 was the latest previous
stable kernel. Is there a patch against 2.6.21.3, for an easy upgrade
to 2.6.22?
Thanks,
-André
just for the record, and searchers to follow...
thanks to all those who mailed me back about his one, a few things needed doing.
The system was booted using the install cdrom and the command
rescue root=/dev/sda1 (ide drives of course would use /dev/hda1)
as far as i can tell the "bunk" kernels
John,
You probably forgot to include support for ext2 filesystems in your new
kernel.
To try to get your machine running for now, boot your machine, and hold
down the shift key (IIRC...).
You should see the machine stop at boot:
Hitting should give you a list of kernels you can chose (again, b
Hi everyone,
hoping someone can help me here
I followed the instructions on
http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/kernel-24.html
for upgrading 2.2r3 to the 2.4 kernel.
I thought i'd followed the isntructions to the letter,
but when i rebooted all seemed well until halfway through the reboot when it
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:18:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I've noticed that progeny Debian has auto-upgrade of kernel upgrades. How do
I do this with my Desktop Debian system, and what are the cons?
apt-get doesn't _automatically_ change (upgrade or downgrade) your
ker
hates me. He said I was being
ridiculous - everyone hasn't met me yet. --Rodney Dangerfield
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:18:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've noticed that progeny Debian has auto-upgrade of kernel upgrades. How do
> I do this with my Desktop Debi
I've noticed that progeny Debian has auto-upgrade of kernel upgrades. How do I
do this with my Desktop Debian system, and what are the cons?
Wayne
thanks
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Denzil Kelly wrote:
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:16:36 -0800 (PST)
> From: Denzil Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: dude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Modules and kernel upgrades
&g
Yes, I had this problem a few weeks back. I posted a
message here and here is the fix that worked for me.
Ah! What you have there is a gotcha in the current
Debian
kernel-building
documentation. Most dists put a .config in the linux
directory that
reflects
the options used to build the distribu
Hi all. im not sure where to find this information
ive read some of the documetntaion
the problem is that when i install and compile a new kernel
and then make modules
and
make modules install
everything seems to work,
but when i boot up
i see a lot of messages about modules not found
what
I was learning (a little) about tty devices, and learned, from
`potato' MAKEDEV and the kernel sources, that in 2.0 kernels,
/dev/console -> /dev/tty0, but in 2.2, /dev/console should be node
5,1.
I've been running 2.2 for some time... but until yesterday, my
/dev/console was still a symlin
Quoting Marcin Owsiany ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 05:24:54PM +0300, Martin Fluch wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> >
> > > I guess this kind of kernel packages would be for people quite concerned
> > > about security but also quite lazy :)
> >
> > I guess
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 05:24:54PM +0300, Martin Fluch wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
>
> > I guess this kind of kernel packages would be for people quite concerned
> > about security but also quite lazy :)
>
> I guess, this is mutual exclusive. People which are lazy will lea
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:46:20AM +, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
>
> I guess this kind of kernel packages would be for people quite concerned
> about security but also quite lazy :)
> Also if you administer a lot of boxes, and if they work ok with the default
> kernel you will find it _a lot_ more
Brian Servis wrote:
> > Ok. To my way of thinking it should be called kernel-image_2.0.34,
> > kernel-image_2.0.36-3, etc. That way apt-get upgrade would grab updated
> > kernels for the user.
>
> If kernel-images did not have the version in the package name then you
> could not have two diffe
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> I guess this kind of kernel packages would be for people quite concerned
> about security but also quite lazy :)
I guess, this is mutual exclusive. People which are lazy will leave many
(and I think also bigger) security holes some where else on the sy
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> That is the point of this idea. If you want your kernel to be upgraded
> automatically, you install secure-kernel, if you only want to be informed,
> you install secure-kernel-info, if you don't care at all, you instal
> neither.
I had read nothing of t
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 02:42:38AM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:27:43AM +, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 09:41:26PM -0500, Ashley Clark wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > > > the way to solve the problem would be to create
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:27:43AM +, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 09:41:26PM -0500, Ashley Clark wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > > the way to solve the problem would be to create a package called e.g.
> > > "secure-kernel", which would depend on the
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 09:41:26PM -0500, Ashley Clark wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > the way to solve the problem would be to create a package called e.g.
> > "secure-kernel", which would depend on the most secure "kernel-image-".
> > Then if the security team has newer ke
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> the way to solve the problem would be to create a package called e.g.
> "secure-kernel", which would depend on the most secure "kernel-image-".
> Then if the security team has newer kernel with security bugfixes, they
> would make a new version of "secur
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 05:19:24PM -0400, Fraser Campbell wrote:
> I realize the kernel is a very special piece of software but still see no
> reason why it is treated differently from normal software. Perhaps the
> upgrade process depends on the virtual package kernel-image which I don't
> seem t
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 05:05:21PM -0500, Brian Servis wrote:
> *- On 28 Sep, Fraser Campbell wrote about "Re: Kernel upgrades = security
> upgrades"
> > Brian Servis wrote:
> >
> >> Notice that the version is part of the package name. Thus a
> >> k
*- On 28 Sep, Fraser Campbell wrote about "Re: Kernel upgrades = security
upgrades"
> Brian Servis wrote:
>
>> Notice that the version is part of the package name. Thus a
>> kernel-image-2.0.34 and kernel-image-2.0.36 are two totally different
>> packages as
Brian Servis wrote:
> Notice that the version is part of the package name. Thus a
> kernel-image-2.0.34 and kernel-image-2.0.36 are two totally different
> packages as far as Debian is concerned, except that they both provide
> the virtual package kernel-image and that fact is not determined unti
*- On 28 Sep, Fraser Campbell wrote about "Kernel upgrades = security upgrades"
> I am curious as to how the kernel upgrades in Debian are done. Recently I
> set up a new slink system. The kernel installed was 2.0.34 (older boot
> disk). I added "deb http://security.de
I am curious as to how the kernel upgrades in Debian are done. Recently I
set up a new slink system. The kernel installed was 2.0.34 (older boot
disk). I added "deb http://security.debian.org/ stable updates" to
/etc/apt/sources.list.
An "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade&q
34 matches
Mail list logo
