On Thursday, June 09, 2011 21:22:50 Timothy L. wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Jun 9, 2011 5:50 PM, "Heiko Baums" <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Am Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:36:21 -0500 > > > > > > schrieb C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxx>: > > >> does this sound genius or completely insane? some insanely genius guy > > >> once said they are only separated by a fine line ... > > > > > > Sounds completely insane. > > > > ooooook ... and ... why? > > > > ) initramfs is not very big (fallback on my sys is only 13MB + 2MB kern) > > ) keeps the whole thing in mkinitcpio > > ) does not affect any current images and is even backward compat > > ) small chance of absolute failure (i think :-) > > ) only small changes to mkinitcpio, if any at all > > ) ... > > ) ... KISS BABY! > > ) oh yeah and ... PROFIT! > > > > im pretty sure it could be implemented as a hook (possibly 2) to the > > current system ... this might even be the best way. `install` hook > > would unpack the current image to a known location (prob > > `/lib/initcpio` somewhere), copy the kernel to the same place, and > > then add the directory to the image (after removing the old-old image > > if existed :-). the real `hook` would then check for one of two > > flags: > > > > ) kexec.flag ... kexec the old kernel with the boot.flag > > ) boot.flag ... chroot to "previous", run old hooks/mods/etc, exit > > chroot, switch_root like normal > > > > i thought it was pretty succinct ... elegant even :-) ... with some > > sprinkles of insanity that give it the funny but mildly enjoyable > > aftertaste. i don't have any free time for a couple days, but i'm > > *pretty* sure this could be done as a hook to the current mkinitcpio > > in a couple hours -- might take a whack at it this weekend, would be > > useful, as i've personally mucked my boot more than once, and though i > > can recover easily enough, i'm liking this more and more ... > > > > ... though i could very well be missing something obvious, certainly > > wouldn't be the first time ... surely someone out there reads this and > > thinks "why not?" > > > > C Anthony > > Keeping the previous kernel after upgrading sounds sane to me. For the > apprehensive, couldn't we just include a simple configuration option/check > somewhere? > > /etc/mkinitcpio.conf > KEEP_PREVIOUS_KERNEL="yes" > > I've read most of this thread but please excuse me if this has already been > mentioned. I'd accept that solution just so long as the default is set to "no" and not "yes." Most Arch people don't want old kernels.
