On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:59:19PM EST, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:44 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
> >> Unless there's some pre or post magic that goes on, these are the
> >> same files which are currently owned by the pre-existing (debian
> >> release 17) kernel package:
Hi Chris,
On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:44 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
>
>> Unless there's some pre or post magic that goes on, these are the same
>> files which are currently owned by the pre-existing (debian release
>> 17) kernel package:
>
> This is odd.
>
> I keep an up-to-date ubuntu partition on the
> Of course I have - otherwise I wouldn't be asking the fine people on
> this list how to go about this.
Now, you're starting to give the necessary info.
> So like I said in my initial email, *concurrent* installs of kernel
> packages doesn't seem feasible by just installing the next kernel
> han
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 12:16:14AM EST, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
[..]
> > What makes you think so? Have you even tried it?
> Of course I have - otherwise I wouldn't be asking the fine people on
> this list how to go about this.
> As an example, the contents of the following linux kernel image deb:
>
In <014c08cf-fef9-4836-b77b-8a5b644c7...@sonous.com>, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
>Well, in my case, the difference between the kernel images provided by the
> following two debs:
>
>linux-image-2.6.26-2-686_2.6.26-17_i386.deb
>linux-image-2.6.26-2-686_2.6.26-21_i386.deb
>
>don't differentiate by a release
Hi Boyd,
On Feb 1, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> New upstream versions, or any version that changes the kernel ABI will be
> retained (or at least can be simply retained), since the kernel ABI will be
> in
> the new package name--it is a replacement only as far as relatively
Stefan,
On Feb 1, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> So assuming that I only have stable + security in my apt sources.list
>> config, how would I manage to keep the older version of the kernel
>> package, as well as the newest version?
>
> Huh... you install the new kernel.
My thought t
In <01b9c640-493c-4d1b-ba0f-20aed4b20...@sonous.com>, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
>On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>> This is totally understandable for most package installs, however with a
>>> kernel, keeping the previous version installed is useful (obviously).
>>
>> It's usual
> So assuming that I only have stable + security in my apt sources.list
> config, how would I manage to keep the older version of the kernel
> package, as well as the newest version?
Huh... you install the new kernel.
> 'apt-get install' will remove the binaries from the previously
> installed ke
Hi Stefan,
On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
What if any is the generally accepted way of maintaining multiple
versions of kernels?
>>> Hmm... well, the wayu I do it is: I install multiple kernels.
>>> That's all there is to it.
>>> Any reason you're wondering about it?
On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>
>> This is totally understandable for most package installs, however with a
>> kernel, keeping the previous version installed is useful (obviously).
>
> It's usually not a big deal when the kernel ABI hasn't changed.
>
> If you have a
>>> What if any is the generally accepted way of maintaining multiple
>>> versions of kernels?
>> Hmm... well, the wayu I do it is: I install multiple kernels.
>> That's all there is to it.
>> Any reason you're wondering about it? Have you tried something and
>> bumped into problems?
> Are you do
On Monday 01 February 2010 16:39:15 Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:14 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > On Monday 01 February 2010 14:00:07 Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> >> What if any is the generally accepted way of maintaining multiple
> >> versions of kernels?
> >
> > Just install each of
Hi Stephen,
On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Stephen Powell wrote:
>
> One must be careful, though. As an example, consider the following
> Debian package file names:
>
> linux-image-2.6.26-2-686_2.6.26-19_i386.deb
> linux-image-2.6.26-2-686_2.6.26-19lenny2_i386.deb
>
> These package files have
Hi Stefan,
On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> What if any is the generally accepted way of maintaining multiple
>> versions of kernels?
>
> Hmm... well, the wayu I do it is: I install multiple kernels.
> That's all there is to it.
> Any reason you're wondering about it? Have y
Hi Boyd,
On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:14 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Monday 01 February 2010 14:00:07 Lev Lvovsky wrote:
>> What if any is the generally accepted way of maintaining multiple versions
>> of kernels?
>
> Just install each of their packages separately. Since the kernel team does
> What if any is the generally accepted way of maintaining multiple
> versions of kernels?
Hmm... well, the wayu I do it is: I install multiple kernels.
That's all there is to it.
Any reason you're wondering about it? Have you tried something and
bumped into problems?
Stefan
--
To UN
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:14:36 -0500 (EST), Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Monday 01 February 2010 14:00:07 Lev Lvovsky wrote:
>> What if any is the generally accepted way of maintaining multiple versions
>> of kernels?
>
> Just install each of their packages separately. Since the kernel team d
On Monday 01 February 2010 14:00:07 Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> What if any is the generally accepted way of maintaining multiple versions
> of kernels?
Just install each of their packages separately. Since the kernel team does
support concurrent installs, the upstream version number is part of the
p
19 matches
Mail list logo
