Re: Keep older kernel intact while upgrading to new kernel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Sat 17 Jul 2010 11:06 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 10:42 -0500, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Victor Lowther
> > <victor.lowther@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 23:10 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 09:17 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
> > >> > On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 18:05 +0400, Евгений Борисов wrote:
> > >> > > I think it's a bad idea, because the directory /lib/modules/$oldVersion$
> > >> > > will be removed when the package is upgraded kernel. Trivial solution not
> > >> > > exists.
> > >> >
> > >> > My solution is to hand-roll my own kernels and initramfs'es after
> > >> > removing the kernel and mkinitcpio packages.  The way Arch handles its
> > >> > kernel packages is a weak point -- Fedora and Ubuntu get this bit right.
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, why not keep all previous kernels and headers around. We could
> > >> automatically extend menu.lst too!
> > >
> > > It wold be better than updating to a new kernel, rebooting, and having
> > > to boot to a LiveCD to get back into your system because the new kernel
> > > fscked things up.
> > >
> > > Keeping versioned header files also comes in handy -- I take it you heve
> > > never tried any sort of testing with out-of-tree drivers or kernel
> > > subsystems? Using DKMS on arch is a pointless waste of time because
> > > older kernel headers are not kept around.
> > >
> > >> I'm not sure what you like about Fedora and Ubuntu handling of kernels,
> > >> but I found it very annoying to have all that stuff hanging around.
> > >> Would be worse with rolling release I'm sure.
> > >
> > > I like knowing that I will not have to hunt for a LiveCD or a rescue USB
> > > drive if a kernel update renders the system unbootable.
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > This wouldn't be a problem if you have a backup kernel :)
> 
> Oh, I do.  I would just prefer to work with the package management
> framework, not work around it.

I think this is something that hooks could do. It's a feature that's in
brainstorming. Maybe you could help implement it.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Pacman_Hooks

Cheers!



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux