Dec 31, 2021, 4:27 PM _ djdisodo wrote:
>
>> note that i'm using debian sid and xfce4
>>
>> it shows full of red bars on htop on one of the core between two(i
>> have atom n455 cpu)
>> iirc red bars means kernel threads
>>
>> i've tested usi
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 4:27 PM _ djdisodo wrote:
> note that i'm using debian sid and xfce4
>
> it shows full of red bars on htop on one of the core between two(i
> have atom n455 cpu)
> iirc red bars means kernel threads
>
> i've tested using debian's boot menu so only th
note that i'm using debian sid and xfce4
it shows full of red bars on htop on one of the core between two(i
have atom n455 cpu)
iirc red bars means kernel threads
i've tested using debian's boot menu so only thing changed is kernel version
it was fine on kernel 5.10 it's happening on kernel 5.14
On 1/9/20 2:02 AM, Klaus Singvogel wrote:
R. Ramesh wrote:
I want to make sure
that my current kernel version does not have any limitation to support 64bit
ext4.
Please consult the Kernel Wiki regarding Ext4:
https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
You will notice that Linux
o make sure that my current kernel version does
> > > not have any limitation to support 64bit ext4.
> >
> > You kernel should support the feature, as it was introduced back at the
> > version 3.6 of the kernel - [1].
> >
> > [1] https://ext4.wiki.kernel.o
o make sure that my current kernel version does
> > > not have any limitation to support 64bit ext4.
> >
> > You kernel should support the feature, as it was introduced back at the
> > version 3.6 of the kernel - [1].
> >
> > [1] https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/ind
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 14:35 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 06:08:16PM -0600, R. Ramesh wrote:
> > Before I get the source and build and update e2fsprogs and then the
> > file system, I want to make sure that my current kernel version does
> > not have any limita
Hi.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 06:08:16PM -0600, R. Ramesh wrote:
> Before I get the source and build and update e2fsprogs and then the
> file system, I want to make sure that my current kernel version does
> not have any limitation to support 64bit ext4.
You kernel shoul
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 09:02 +0100, Klaus Singvogel wrote:
> R. Ramesh wrote:
> > I want to make sure
> > that my current kernel version does not have any limitation to support 64bit
> > ext4.
>
> Please consult the Kernel Wiki regarding Ext4:
>
> https
R. Ramesh wrote:
> I want to make sure
> that my current kernel version does not have any limitation to support 64bit
> ext4.
Please consult the Kernel Wiki regarding Ext4:
https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
You will notice that Linux 2.6.28 was the first suppor
the source and build and update e2fsprogs and then
the file system, I want to make sure that my current kernel version does
not have any limitation to support 64bit ext4. My google searches do
not mention any kernel limitations. I think this is due to my inability
to ask the right question
Yes. Two of the above.
You are running Debian kernel 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3 which is compatible
with the kernel ABI used in Debian kernel *package* 3.16.0-4-686-pae.
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-5195 confirms
that you want 3.16.36-1+deb8u2.
Thank you for your quick
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:18:03PM +0100, Georg Stillfried wrote:
> can someone please help me find out which kernel version (and
> sub-version) I have?
uname -a
> $ uname -v
> #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3 (2016-07-02)
>
> $ uname -r
> 3.16.0-4-686-pae
Or that. I
Hello,
can someone please help me find out which kernel version (and
sub-version) I have? Don't scould, I have done the search on Google and
in the Debian documentation on how to find one's kernel version, but I
am confused by the results:
$ uname -v
#1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3
; isn't it "3.16-4-amd64"? I mean, all those versions seem to always
> have a ".0" which is unused.
>From https://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-versions.html:
,
| Many programs parse the kernel version string reported by the uname
| system call or command and expe
> This is what is called the Kernel-ABI. All modules compiled for
> "3.16.0-4-amd64" will be compatible with all kernels providing this.
I had kind of figured that out, but one thing still puzzles me: why
isn't it "3.16-4-amd64"? I mean, all those versions seem to always have
a ".0" which is
solitone <solit...@mail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 1:12:52 PM CET Sven Hartge wrote:
>> This is the real kernel version.
> Hi Sven, and thanks for your explanation. This means that
> 3.16.36-1+deb8u2 is based on the following official version?
> https://
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 1:12:52 PM CET Sven Hartge wrote:
> > uname -v
> > #1 SMP Debian 3.16.36-1+deb8u2 (2016-10-19)
>
> This is the real kernel version.
Hi Sven, and thanks for your explanation. This means that 3.16.36-1+deb8u2 is
based on the following offic
> > My kernel release is different from kernel-version. Is this okay?
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> > If yes, > why is this so?
>
> > uname -r
> > 3.16.0-4-amd64
>
> This is what is called the Kernel-ABI. All modules compiled for
> "3.16.0-4-amd64" w
Вадим Колчев <vadimkolc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have up-to-date stable Jessie installation and noticed interesting thing.
> My kernel release is different from kernel-version. Is this okay?
Yes, it is.
> If yes, > why is this so?
> uname -r
> 3.16.0-4-amd64
This is w
Hi all,
Have up-to-date stable Jessie installation and noticed interesting thing.
My kernel release is different from kernel-version. Is this okay? If yes,
why is this so?
uname -r
3.16.0-4-amd64
uname -v
#1 SMP Debian 3.16.36-1+deb8u2 (2016-10-19)
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Vadim
Sorry for the newb question. I am trying to determine the kernel version of
Jessie. Uname -r produces: 3.16.0-4-amd64
I have seen other references to 3.16.7 however, and I know 3.16.7 was the
latest 3.16.x. Is 3.16.0-4 really the equivalent of 3.16.7? either way can
someone explain to me how I
Am 27.04.2015 um 15:05 schrieb Grant Albitz:
Sorry for the newb question. I am trying to determine the kernel version of
Jessie. Uname -r produces: 3.16.0-4-amd64
I have seen other references to 3.16.7 however, and I know 3.16.7 was the
latest 3.16.x. Is 3.16.0-4 really the equivalent
Thank you, this confirmed it was linux (3.16.7-ckt9-3~deb8u1)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/b54d10f9e0184999b2be7d22b2b11...@stsdcfs01.techsolllc.com
Le 27.10.2014 01:12, Santiago Vila a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote:
what kernel version will Jessie have when it became stable ? Is
there
any chance for newer version than 3.16.x (for example 3.17.x,
3.18.x).
Is this important at all? You
Hi list,
what kernel version will Jessie have when it became stable ? Is there
any chance for newer version than 3.16.x (for example 3.17.x, 3.18.x).
Kind regards
Georgi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas
Georgi Naplatanov go...@oles.biz wrote:
what kernel version will Jessie have when it became stable ?
3.16.x
Is there any chance for newer version than 3.16.x (for example 3.17.x,
3.18.x).
Zero chance: https://bits.debian.org/2014/07/kernel-version-for-jessie.html
Grüße,
S
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote:
what kernel version will Jessie have when it became stable ? Is there
any chance for newer version than 3.16.x (for example 3.17.x, 3.18.x).
Is this important at all? You will always be able to build your own
kernel or use one
What I'm wondering is whether I can get uname to return the desired
format by somehow compiling a custom kernel.
Yes you can, by getting the source code from kernel.org.
If you simply copy the config from the Debians kernel, then IIRC
# make-kpkg --initrd kernel-image kernel-headers
won't
FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel-version string, 3.12-1-amd64,
something that I could change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
An appropriately named shell script in the right place in the path
might take care of uname(1), but I
On 2014-02-22 00:20 +0100, Thomas Vaughan wrote:
I have downloaded some proprietary software that I want to install onto a
64-bit Debian machine. The software is written for 64-bit linux, but the
kernel version reported, for example, by uname (and perhaps by some system
call that the compiled
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 22:58:40 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
abiname shouldn't change should it?
I wouldn't think so - but I also don't know. However, if you do change
something basic like the kernel version, what else will it affect? You
might get a kernel which will boot but nothing
I have downloaded some proprietary software that I want to install onto a
64-bit Debian machine. The software is written for 64-bit linux, but the
kernel version reported, for example, by uname (and perhaps by some system
call that the compiled software uses) is not in a format that the software
the expected result.
---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel-version string, 3.12-1-amd64, something that I could
change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
--
Glenn English
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ
Forwarded Message
From: Ralf Mardorf
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Third-Party Software Needs Non-Debian Format for Kernel
Version
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:54:59 +0100
Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4
Forwarded Message
From: Ralf Mardorf
To: debian
3.12.9-1
then parsing it would yield the expected result.
---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel-version string, 3.12-1-amd64, something that I
could change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
Or sed?
Or export?
Or, um
isn't supported per se. But when [the software], or the makefiles, parse the
string
3.12-1-amd64
they don't get the expected result. If the uname -r were the string
3.12.9-1
then parsing it would yield the expected result.
---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel
isn't supported per se. But when [the software], or the makefiles,
parse the string
3.12-1-amd64
they don't get the expected result. If the uname -r were the string
3.12.9-1
then parsing it would yield the expected result.
---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel
isn't supported per se. But when [the software], or the makefiles, parse
the string
3.12-1-amd64
they don't get the expected result. If the uname -r were the string
3.12.9-1
then parsing it would yield the expected result.
---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel
Forwarded Message
From: Ralf Mardorf
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Re: Third-Party Software Needs Non-Debian Format for Kernel
Version
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 03:28:15 +0100
Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 19:20 -0700, Thomas Vaughan wrote:
What
FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel-version string, 3.12-1-amd64, something that I
could change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
Or sed?
Or export?
Or, um, more information about what Debian release is being used and the
third-party
FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel-version string, 3.12-1-amd64, something that I could
change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
Or sed?
Or export?
Or, um, more information about what Debian release is being used and the
third-party
yield the expected result.
---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel-version string, 3.12-1-amd64, something
that I could change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
Or sed?
Or export?
Or, um, more information about what Debian
the string
3.12.9-1
then parsing it would yield the expected result.
---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel-version string, 3.12-1-amd64, something
that I could change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
Or sed?
Or export
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:36:02 -0500 (EST), Michael Gulick wrote:
I think my only option if I want automatic upgrades is to keep the
abiname constant. I'm assuming (and I'm not sure whether this
assumption is correct) that all the third party modules (primarily
nvidia drivers and vmware)
for. I'll read it in depth some more and let you know if I have
any feedback.
I'd be happy to share more details about how I rebuilt the backports
package for a newer kernel version. Let me know if you'd like me to
send them to you.
Thanks,
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ
Hi,
I'm looking for a way to override the default kernel package versions
generated by make-kpkg. With 3.0+ kernels, the kernel sublevel (as in
VERSION.PATCHLEVEL.SUBLEVEL), which is incremented when there are stable
updates for a kernel release, is used to generate the package name. This
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Michael Gulick mgul...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking for a way to override the default kernel package versions
generated by make-kpkg. With 3.0+ kernels, the kernel sublevel (as in
VERSION.PATCHLEVEL.SUBLEVEL), which is incremented when there are stable
updates
, the Debian kernel team used
make-kpkg to produce its stock Debian kernels. But beginning with lenny,
the Debian kernel team stopped using make-kpkg to produce its stock
kernel packages and went their own way. But all three levels of the
kernel version name (VERSION, PATCHLEVEL, and SUBLEVEL) were
-version/kernel/drivers/usb/serial
3. insmod
/lib/modules/kernel-version/kernel/drivers/usb/serial/usbserial.ko
4. insmod cp210x.ko
What I want to know is how do I determine the kernel version of my
debian 6 system so I can load the correct version?
John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
John Lindsay grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
What I want to know is how do I determine the kernel version of my
debian 6 system so I can load the correct version?
uname -r will do it. man uname for more. :-)
--Dave
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On 2013-08-11, John Lindsay jcl...@sentex.net wrote:
snip
What I want to know is how do I determine the
kernel version of my debian 6 system so
I can load the correct version?
John
run uname -a from a term
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
Thanks for the info -- Running kernel 2.6.x.xx so I know which USB
driver I need to install
On 11/08/13 01:02 PM, Kruppt wrote:
On 2013-08-11, John Lindsayjcl...@sentex.net wrote:
snip
What I want to know is how do I determine the
kernel version of my debian 6 system so
I can
blank screen with a flashing cursor
- not mouse - and after more waiting it stayed there too.
Good! Now you know exactly what edits to what config files that you need to
undo.
I reboot after it and start with a previous kernel version number -
the number ends with 486, not 686 - with Rescue
2012-10-21 18:34, Gábor Hársfalvi skrev:
2012/10/20 Johan Grönqvistjohan.gronqv...@gmail.com:
2012-10-20 10:44, Gábor Hársfalvi skrev:
Good! Now you know exactly what edits to what config files that you need to
undo.
Now you know exactly what edits to what config files that you need to
undo.
reboot after it and start with a previous kernel version number -
the number ends with 486, not 686 - with Rescue Mode. It started and
after Ctrl+D - when it needs - it booted the gui succesfully and
everything worked well.
I would like to start the computer with the newest available kernel
version
more waiting it stayed there too.
Good! Now you know exactly what edits to what config files that you need
to undo.
I reboot after it and start with a previous kernel version number -
the number ends with 486, not 686 - with Rescue Mode. It started and
after Ctrl+D - when it needs - it booted
On Sb, 17 dec 11, 01:28:59, Sthu Deus wrote:
How do I find out if there is a new version of linux kernel package is
available? - I mean, having 3.1 installed, to know that 3.2 is
available?
Beside Camaleón's suggestion, aptitude keeps track of new[1] packages.
You can show the list with
Sthu Deus wrote:
apt-cache search linux-image
...
Is there a more elegant way?
In addition to the ways suggested by others there is also a program to
query the database and provide other useful information.
apt-show-versions | grep linux-image
Mine shows:
?
PS apt-cache policy linux-image-exact_version shows only updates for
the version - and not a new kernel version s 3.2 vs. 3.1
Thanks for Your time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sat 17 Dec 2011 at 01:28:59 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
How do I find out if there is a new version of linux kernel package is
available? - I mean, having 3.1 installed, to know that 3.2 is
available?
For the present I do it by
apt-cache search linux-image
and then look for what is
policy linux-image-exact_version shows only updates for the
version - and not a new kernel version s 3.2 vs. 3.1
Anyway, AFAICS the latest available kernel in Debian is 3.1 (testing/sid)
and 3.2 (for experimental). What branch are you running?
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On 12/16/2011 02:20 PM, Brian wrote:
On Sat 17 Dec 2011 at 01:28:59 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
How do I find out if there is a new version of linux kernel package is
available? - I mean, having 3.1 installed, to know that 3.2 is
available?
For the present I do it by
apt-cache search linux-image
Hi.
On Monday 16 August 2010 03:00, T o n g wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to get the kernel version of a chroot system?
I tried
chroot chroot_fs uname -r
but it only reports the kernel version of my current system, not the
chroot system.
Chroot changes into a different directory
Hi,
Is it possible to get the kernel version of a chroot system?
I tried
chroot chroot_fs uname -r
but it only reports the kernel version of my current system, not the
chroot system.
Any other way?
Thanks
--
Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
http://xpt.sourceforge.net/techdocs
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:00:54 -0400 (EDT), Tong wrote:
Is it possible to get the kernel version of a chroot system?
I'm not sure that I understand what question you are really asking.
I am assuming that you have, for example, used a Debian installation
CD as a rescue CD on a system that you do
version: 2.6.18-5.
At http://packages.debian.org/etch; it shows kernel version 2.6.18-6.
I am using dselect, and I am wondering why the differences in kernel
version.
--
TIA
Peace
Greg Madden
It appears kernel 2.6.18-6 is available in dselect, it is just not
offered as an 'update to 2.6.18
/updates main contrib.
This gives me kernel version: 2.6.18-5.
At http://packages.debian.org/etch; it shows kernel version 2.6.18-6.
I am using dselect, and I am wondering why the differences in kernel
version.
--
TIA
Peace
Greg Madden
It appears kernel 2.6.18-6 is available in dselect
I have a Lenny box running the 2.6.18 kernel. I have the following sources
added to the Lenny ones:
deb http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/ etch main contrib
deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib.
This gives me kernel version: 2.6.18-5.
At http://packages.debian.org/etch
In a normal scenario, whenever we do:
apt-get purge linux-image-
the corresponding:
/lib/modules/
directory gets removed from the system.
But I noticed that suppose installed some out-of-tree kernel modules and now
when you try to remove the same kernel (for which you installed out-of-tree
On 2009-08-13 21:51 +0200, Kushal Koolwal wrote:
In a normal scenario, whenever we do:
apt-get purge linux-image-
the corresponding:
/lib/modules/
directory gets removed from the system.
But I noticed that suppose installed some out-of-tree kernel modules
and now when you try to
This sounds logical, since your out-of-tree modules are probably still
there.
Yeah that's right. But why doesn't it (apt-get purge) remove those out-of-tree
modules also when I try to remove the package? Is there a Debian package rule
which
says only remove files which were originally
Kushal Koolwal writes:
Is there a Debian package rule which says only remove files which
were originally provided by the package...
Would you expect removing vi to remove all the files you created with
it? Purge means remove the configuration files that the package
installed in addition to all
Would you expect removing vi to remove all the files you created with
it? Purge means remove the configuration files that the package
installed in addition to all the other files from the package.
Agreed, and I am not surprised that this happens. My intent for asking the
question was to know
--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Jan Brosius jan.bros...@skynet.be wrote:
From: Jan Brosius jan.bros...@skynet.be
Subject: kernel version of debian testing.
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 6:55 PM
Hi,
Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version
Hi,
Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version of debian-testing? I
saw on the internet that my hardware (more precisely my ethernet card) needs
kernel 2.6.27-*.
thanks for any information,
Jan
On 12/18/08 12:55, Jan Brosius wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version of
debian-testing? I saw on the internet that my hardware (more precisely
my ethernet card) needs kernel 2.6.27-*.
thanks for any information,
$ apt-cache search linux-image | grep ^linux
On 2008-12-18 19:08 +0100, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 12/18/08 12:55, Jan Brosius wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version of
debian-testing? I saw on the internet that my hardware (more
precisely my ethernet card) needs kernel 2.6.27-*.
thanks for any information
On 12/18/08 12:26, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2008-12-18 19:08 +0100, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 12/18/08 12:55, Jan Brosius wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version of
debian-testing? I saw on the internet that my hardware (more
precisely my ethernet card) needs kernel
Hello,
We're in the process of upgrading some old computers from sarge to etch.
On one computer (used only as a firewall) it has:
Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled.
CPU: Intel Pentium MMX stepping 03
Anyway the kernel it is running is:
vmlinuz-2.4.27-4-586tsc for the
Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled.
CPU: Intel Pentium MMX stepping 03
Anyway the kernel it is running is:
vmlinuz-2.4.27-4-586tsc for the Pentium-Classic.
My question is, on the upgrade should I install the kernel-image-2.6-386
or the kernel-image-2.6-686? I see no 586tsc.
On Monday 21 July 2008 22:49, Account for Debian group mail wrote:
Hello,
We're in the process of upgrading some old computers from sarge to etch.
On one computer (used only as a firewall) it has:
Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled.
CPU: Intel Pentium MMX stepping 03
Account for Debian group mail wrote:
My question is, on the upgrade should I install the kernel-image-2.6-386
or the kernel-image-2.6-686? I see no 586tsc.
Wow, this brings back memories (COAST modules anyone?) IIRC the 686 image will
barf on your Pentium MMX as the Pentium Pro instruction
Henry,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Henry Luciano wrote:
Out of curiosity, why hang onto an old Pentium when you can pick up an old
Athlon or P3 for probably nothing? Aside from not dumping yet another system
into the waste stream that is.
Because this computer was long ago paid for and there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/21/08 17:10, Henry Luciano wrote:
[snip]
Out of curiosity, why hang onto an old Pentium when you can pick up an
old Athlon or P3 for probably nothing? Aside from not dumping yet
another system into the waste stream that is.
Maybe(?)
me how to stop this behaviour?
Hello Andrw,
I sent this to both you and the list given your whoever is out there.
There have been repeated bugs found in the kernel that have been patched
without changing the kernel version. So yes, you should continue to
keep your system up-to-date
Hi whoever is out there.
I recently installed debian etch in a virtual box vm. Several times
since then the updater has wanted to update the kernel image to the same
version as the current kernel, which is 2.6.18-6-k7. I let it do it the
first couple of times since i was new to debian, but it has
there.
There have been repeated bugs found in the kernel that have been patched
without changing the kernel version. So yes, you should continue to
keep your system up-to-date even if the kernel version stays the same.
I don't know what updater is, since the default package manager on
Etch is aptitude on which
koffiejunkie wrote:
Jeff D wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
When the installer came up, I hit Ctrl+Alt+F2 for a console, and did
a uname -a. It gave me 2.6.18. This is what I want to check before
downloading: which kernel the install CD uses, not which kernel it
installs.
Hi guys,
I noticed that even though 2.6.21 is now in the Lenny repos, the install
CD (well, 13 July, at least) still runs 2.6.18.
Is there any way to check, before downloading, what version of the
kernel the install CD runs?
Thanks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a
On Sun July 15 2007 04:38, koffiejunkie wrote:
Hi guys,
I noticed that even though 2.6.21 is now in the Lenny repos, the install
CD (well, 13 July, at least) still runs 2.6.18.
Is there any way to check, before downloading, what version of the
kernel the install CD runs?
What install disk
Alan Ianson wrote:
On Sun July 15 2007 04:38, koffiejunkie wrote:
Hi guys,
I noticed that even though 2.6.21 is now in the Lenny repos, the install
CD (well, 13 July, at least) still runs 2.6.18.
Is there any way to check, before downloading, what version of the
kernel the install CD runs?
On Sun July 15 2007 07:53, koffiejunkie wrote:
Alan Ianson wrote:
On Sun July 15 2007 04:38, koffiejunkie wrote:
Hi guys,
I noticed that even though 2.6.21 is now in the Lenny repos, the install
CD (well, 13 July, at least) still runs 2.6.18.
Is there any way to check, before
On Sun July 15 2007 07:53, koffiejunkie wrote:
Alan Ianson wrote:
On Sun July 15 2007 04:38, koffiejunkie wrote:
Hi guys,
I noticed that even though 2.6.21 is now in the Lenny repos, the install
CD (well, 13 July, at least) still runs 2.6.18.
Is there any way to check, before
Alan Ianson wrote:
On Sun July 15 2007 07:53, koffiejunkie wrote:
I checked after booting off the disc - it was 2.6.18
I used the businesscard iso, maybe there is a difference.
I'll give that a try, thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
Alan Ianson wrote:
On Sun July 15 2007 07:53, koffiejunkie wrote:
I checked after booting off the disc - it was 2.6.18
I used the businesscard iso, maybe there is a difference.
I'll give that a try, thanks.
for what its worth, i just grabbed
Jeff D wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
Alan Ianson wrote:
On Sun July 15 2007 07:53, koffiejunkie wrote:
I checked after booting off the disc - it was 2.6.18
I used the businesscard iso, maybe there is a difference.
I'll give that a try, thanks.
for what its worth, i
On Sun July 15 2007 14:10, koffiejunkie wrote:
I'm not really concerned with which kernel the installer installs. I
need the install CD itself to run the 2.6.21 kernel.
I just tried today's (15 July) businesscard ISO, booted of it with the
following command:
expertgui vga=0x342
I wonder
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
Jeff D wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
Alan Ianson wrote:
On Sun July 15 2007 07:53, koffiejunkie wrote:
I checked after booting off the disc - it was 2.6.18
I used the businesscard iso, maybe there is a difference.
I'll give
Jeff D wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
When the installer came up, I hit Ctrl+Alt+F2 for a console, and did a
uname -a. It gave me 2.6.18. This is what I want to check before
downloading: which kernel the install CD uses, not which kernel it
installs.
are you sure you have
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
