On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 11:32, Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 06.08.2011 18:27, schrieb Myra Nelson: >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:58, Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> please signoff the 3.0 series for both architectures. >>> >>> Note: the upgrade path from 3.0-2 to 3.0.1-1 is not entirely smooth if >>> you rely on the vmlinuz26 compat symlink. However, the upgrade path from >>> core/kernel26 to this version is smooth. >>> >>> Upstream changes: >>> http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges >>> >>> Arch Linux Changes: >>> - Rename the package: kernel26 -> linux >>> - Added necessary replaces=(...) >>> - Removed old comments and vercmps from .install file >>> - Removed old comments and replaces from PKGBUILD >>> - added compatibility symlinks for the old kernel and initramfs >>> filenames in order to not break existing bootloader entries (only >>> affects upgrades, not new installations) >>> - removed System.map file, not needed anymore as we provide >>> /proc/kallsyms >>> >> >> I haven't upgraded from 3.0-2 to 3.0.1-1 yet, but thought I would get >> some clarification. I'm assuming the reference to fixing your >> bootloader means having edited the kernel and initramfs lines to point >> to vmlinuz-linux and initramfs-linux.img and >> initramfs-fallback-linux.img. The reason for clarification is, we all >> know when one assumes something you make an "ass out of u and me". >> >> If that's correct I should have it made, it's the first thing I did >> when I installed the new linux 3.0 kernel. >> >> Myra > > You are right. > > It boots and everything seems to work fine. A check of dmesg doesn't show any problems. If you accept signoffs from users you have mine for x86_64. -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
