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
What if any is the generally accepted way of maintaining multiple versions of
kernels? I'm currently experiencing boot problems with the latest version of
the kernel, and must keep version 2.6.26-17 installed. I'd like to install
this, and the latest concurrently so that I can experiment with
20 matches
Mail list logo
