On 02/03/2010 06:45 AM, Muhammed Uluyol wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
pacman should do what you said. keeping /boot/vmlinuz- instead of
just /boot/vmlinuz
Then arch will try to load modules for a newer kernel version and that
WILL fail.
I doesn't work an
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>
> pacman should do what you said. keeping /boot/vmlinuz- instead of
> just /boot/vmlinuz
>
Then arch will try to load modules for a newer kernel version and that
WILL fail.
I doesn't work and isn't difficult to store a limited number of
At Montag, 1. Februar 2010 23:45 Muhammed Uluyol wrote:
> cp `ls -1 /var/cache/pacman/pkg/kernel26-2.6* | tail -n 1` ./
>
> Is it really that hard?
You have over read that i don't have this problem because i have own kernel
packages (one optimzed which includes the BFS Scheduler and one stable)
At Montag, 1. Februar 2010 23:57 Heiko Baums wrote:
> It's contrary because these cases are so seldom it would make too much
> work to keep and maintain several older versions and it would cost much
> more disk space and traffic on the mirrors.
+1 I speak about this seldom cases and the only one
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Ray Rashif wrote:
>
> Urmm..if it is so important, Arch gives you the power to roll your own
> kernel. Heck, I don't even have a fallback, because I don't need it.
> Like Fons, I have an RT kernel, and a normal kernel. Either acts as a
> backup of the other, since n
There is no rescue shell for when the kernel is broken ?
I remember having broken archlinux 3 times, mostly the graphical interface.
I have installed only one time archlinux. No need to reinstall to fix it.
By the way, I'm fine with the way kernel are handled. And I doesn't
understand why we shoul
On 2 February 2010 13:43, Ty John wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:13:38 -0600
> "William A. Mahaffey III" wrote:
>
>> On 02/01/10 21:59, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
>> > Well, Arch is rolling release distro, I agree. Arch rocks. But only
>> > one thing. pacman should support installing multiple ke
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:13:38 -0600
"William A. Mahaffey III" wrote:
> On 02/01/10 21:59, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> > Well, Arch is rolling release distro, I agree. Arch rocks. But only
> > one thing. pacman should support installing multiple kernels.
> > Developers need not maintain the old
On 02/01/10 23:10, Allan McRae wrote:
On 02/02/10 15:13, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
On 02/01/10 21:59, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
Well, Arch is rolling release distro, I agree. Arch rocks. But only
one thing. pacman should support installing multiple kernels.
Developers need not maintain th
On 02/02/10 15:13, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
On 02/01/10 21:59, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
Well, Arch is rolling release distro, I agree. Arch rocks. But only
one thing. pacman should support installing multiple kernels.
Developers need not maintain the old version. Let it be in the cache
o
On 02/01/10 21:59, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
Well, Arch is rolling release distro, I agree. Arch rocks. But only
one thing. pacman should support installing multiple kernels.
Developers need not maintain the old version. Let it be in the cache
of the user. But pacman should not remove the olde
On 02/02/2010 09:34 AM, Dan McGee wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
Well, Arch is rolling release distro, I agree. Arch rocks. But only one
thing. pacman should support installing multiple kernels. Developers need
not maintain the old version. Let it be in the ca
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> Well, Arch is rolling release distro, I agree. Arch rocks. But only one
> thing. pacman should support installing multiple kernels. Developers need
> not maintain the old version. Let it be in the cache of the user. But pacman
> should n
Well, Arch is rolling release distro, I agree. Arch rocks. But only one
thing. pacman should support installing multiple kernels. Developers
need not maintain the old version. Let it be in the cache of the user.
But pacman should not remove the older one after upgrade.
--
Nilesh Govindarajan
S
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 06:09:58PM -0500, dave reisner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:01 PM, wrote:
>
> > On Arch you of course always have the 'fallback' boot
> > option (which can be expected to work), or you can boot
> > from the original netinstall CD. But it's by no means
> > clear to me
Am Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:09:58 -0500
schrieb dave reisner :
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:01 PM, wrote:
>
> > On Arch you of course always have the 'fallback' boot
> > option (which can be expected to work), or you can boot
> > from the original netinstall CD. But it's by no means
> > clear to me how
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:01 PM, wrote:
> On Arch you of course always have the 'fallback' boot
> option (which can be expected to work), or you can boot
> from the original netinstall CD. But it's by no means
> clear to me how you could 'rewind' a failed kernel update
> using either of these.
>
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 08:48:14PM +0100, Tom wrote:
> > Mantaining multiple kernels would only add overhead on developers'
> > work, and bloating /boot.
>
> I don't really get that. I'm no expert in using pacman or writing
> PKGBUILDs, but I can very readily imagine a mechanism that on each
> ro
Am Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:08:23 +0100
schrieb Attila :
> One of them which is important be the kernel. So if pacman would have
> the option to install a certain version of a package than the user
> need only to know if there is more than one version in db. So perhaps
> this coould be solved at exampl
>> And if you really need to downgrade the kernel or another package just
>> do it with pacman -U /var/cache/pacman/pkg/-.
>
> I know this is the No.1 hint but this solution is not very well from my view
> because instead the hardidsk getting bigger and bigger it sounds unlogical to
> keep a lot of
At Montag, 1. Februar 2010 22:08 Heiko Baums wrote:
At first i want to say that i'm not interested for that the devs have to have
too much work.
> And if you really need to downgrade the kernel or another package just
> do it with pacman -U /var/cache/pacman/pkg/-.
I know this is the No.1 hint
2010/2/1 Xavier Chantry
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:59 PM, ludovic coues wrote:
> >>
> >> WAIT WHAT?
> >> http://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/i686/kernel26-lts/
> >> http://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/kernel26-lts/
> >>
> >
> > lts is not for everyday desktop usage.
> >
>
> Who said
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:59 PM, ludovic coues wrote:
>>
>> WAIT WHAT?
>> http://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/i686/kernel26-lts/
>> http://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/kernel26-lts/
>>
>
> lts is not for everyday desktop usage.
>
Who said anything about desktop usage ?
It is useful fo
On 02/01/2010 09:06 AM, Dan McGee wrote:
> [snip]
> Oh my! A bug! But software never has bugs, and we should test
> everything for months before releasing it!
>
> Seriously, do you think we purposely release buggy software? (We
> don't) Do strive for a rock solid system? No, because our users (and
Am Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:48:14 +0100
schrieb Tom :
> I don't really get that. I'm no expert in using pacman or writing
> PKGBUILDs, but I can very readily imagine a mechanism that on each
> rolling release update to the kernel, moves the current kernel on the
> users system to say 'kernel-previous',
> After all, you really should compile your own kernels, and keep
> backups around just in case you break something there yourself...
What I mean is, for me, the official arch-kernel IS the main backup...
;)
> Mantaining multiple kernels would only add overhead on developers'
> work, and bloating /boot.
I don't really get that. I'm no expert in using pacman or writing
PKGBUILDs, but I can very readily imagine a mechanism that on each
rolling release update to the kernel, moves the current kernel on th
Dan McGee wrote:
2010/2/1 Nilesh Govindarajan :
On 02/01/2010 08:53 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 15:59 +0100, ludovic coues wrote:
2010/2/1 Emmanuel Benisty
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan
wrote:
How to install multiple ke
Emmanuel Benisty wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
How to install multiple kernels using pacman ?
Arch should do something like Fedora/Redhat. Maintain 1-2 previous kernels
so that if a new one is buggy, then the old one can be used.
QFT.
WAIT WHAT?
h
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 11:43 -0500, Ray Kohler wrote:
> 2010/2/1 Nilesh Govindarajan :
> > Agreed. But recently a USB problem (possibly a bug) was being discussed
> > heavily on the forums. What about it ? Didn't the developers test the kernel
> > properly before releasing it to the community ?
>
>
2010/2/1 Nilesh Govindarajan :
> Agreed. But recently a USB problem (possibly a bug) was being discussed
> heavily on the forums. What about it ? Didn't the developers test the kernel
> properly before releasing it to the community ?
Can you point me to this thread? Forum search and google aren't
2010/2/1 Nilesh Govindarajan :
> Agreed. But recently a USB problem (possibly a bug) was being discussed
> heavily on the forums. What about it ? Didn't the developers test the kernel
> properly before releasing it to the community ?
want to improve this situation ? use [testing] in arch, report b
2010/2/1 Nilesh Govindarajan :
> Agreed. But recently a USB problem (possibly a bug) was being discussed
> heavily on the forums. What about it ? Didn't the developers test the kernel
> properly before releasing it to the community ?
>
They do test the kernel, but you can't possibly expect them to
2010/2/1 Nilesh Govindarajan :
> On 02/01/2010 08:53 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 15:59 +0100, ludovic coues wrote:
>>>
>>> 2010/2/1 Emmanuel Benisty
>>>
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan
wrote:
>
> How to install multiple kernels using pacman
On 02/01/2010 08:53 PM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 15:59 +0100, ludovic coues wrote:
2010/2/1 Emmanuel Benisty
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan
wrote:
How to install multiple kernels using pacman ?
Arch should do something like Fedora/Redhat. Maintain 1-2 previ
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 15:59 +0100, ludovic coues wrote:
> 2010/2/1 Emmanuel Benisty
>
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan
> > wrote:
> > > How to install multiple kernels using pacman ?
> > >
> > > Arch should do something like Fedora/Redhat. Maintain 1-2 previous
> > kernels
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 09:59, ludovic coues wrote:
> 2010/2/1 Emmanuel Benisty
> lts is not for everyday desktop usage.
>
> By the way, there should be a way to get older with something like that
> pacman -S kernel26-2.6.32.6-1
>
Arch is a rolling release distro. The repo only keeps one version
On 02/01/10 08:59, ludovic coues wrote:
2010/2/1 Emmanuel Benisty
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan
wrote:
How to install multiple kernels using pacman ?
Arch should do something like Fedora/Redhat. Maintain 1-2 previous
kernels
so that if a new one
2010/2/1 Emmanuel Benisty
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan
> wrote:
> > How to install multiple kernels using pacman ?
> >
> > Arch should do something like Fedora/Redhat. Maintain 1-2 previous
> kernels
> > so that if a new one is buggy, then the old one can be used.
>
> QF
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:
> How to install multiple kernels using pacman ?
>
> Arch should do something like Fedora/Redhat. Maintain 1-2 previous kernels
> so that if a new one is buggy, then the old one can be used.
QFT.
WAIT WHAT?
http://www.archlinux.org/packa
You can still use it, starting fallback kernel and downgrading it with
pacman.
Mantaining multiple kernels would only add overhead on developers' work, and
bloating /boot.
2010/2/1 Nilesh Govindarajan
> How to install multiple kernels using pacman ?
>
> Arch should do something like Fedora/Redha
How to install multiple kernels using pacman ?
Arch should do something like Fedora/Redhat. Maintain 1-2 previous
kernels so that if a new one is buggy, then the old one can be used.
--
Nilesh Govindarajan
Site & Server Adminstrator
www.itech7.com
42 matches
Mail list logo
