It would appear that on Jun 10, Heiko Baums did say: > Am Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:48:57 +0200 > schrieb Vic Demuzere <vic@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > Having multiple kernels is insane. I don't get why it's needed. There > > is a live cd to rescue your system if needed. > > And the old kernel packages (every package) are saved in pacman's cache > (usually /var/cache/pacman/pkg) anyway until pacman -Sc or pacman -Scc > is run. So every package can easily be downgraded by running pacman > -U /var/cache/pacman/pkg/<package-file-name>. Mind specifying for an idiot like me just which package-file-names I'd need to use with pacman -U to restore the previous kernel, complete with it's modules? -snipped. . . . . . . . . .stuff > The better and much cleaner solution is to first try the fallback initrd > or to install a different kernel package like kernel26-lts parallel to > kernel26. > > Keep in mind, those cases in which an updated kernel is unbootable > are very, very rare. > > And people who need a reliable system and are so afraid of > broken kernels, of course, shouldn't use [testing]. They should better > install a multiboot system with one stable system and one test system. > This way they can test kernel updates from [testing] on their test > system and update the kernel on their stable system only if the test > system is working correctly. This would, btw., help to filing bug > reports for the kernels on esoteric hardware before they get into > [core]. Now that, Heiko, is a good idea. And one that I could actually do. I'd just have to decide which of my other Linux distributions to sacrifice to make room for it... Keeping in mind that as you say: "those cases in which an updated kernel is unbootable are very, very rare." I think I'd rather learn how to use the "pacman -U" method... -- | ~^~ ~^~ | <*> <*> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook | ^ J(tWdy)P | \___/ <<jtwdyp@xxxxxxxx>>
