On Sat 17 Jul 2010 11:06 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 10:42 -0500, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Victor Lowther <victor.lowther@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 23:10 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 09:17 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 18:05 +0400, Евгений Борисов wrote:
I think it's a bad idea, because the directory /lib/modules/$oldVersion$ will be removed when the package is upgraded kernel. Trivial solution not exists.
My solution is to hand-roll my own kernels and initramfs'es after removing the kernel and mkinitcpio packages. The way Arch handles its kernel packages is a weak point -- Fedora and Ubuntu get this bit right.
Yeah, why not keep all previous kernels and headers around. We could automatically extend menu.lst too!
It wold be better than updating to a new kernel, rebooting, and having to boot to a LiveCD to get back into your system because the new kernel fscked things up.
Keeping versioned header files also comes in handy -- I take it you heve never tried any sort of testing with out-of-tree drivers or kernel subsystems? Using DKMS on arch is a pointless waste of time because older kernel headers are not kept around.
I'm not sure what you like about Fedora and Ubuntu handling of kernels, but I found it very annoying to have all that stuff hanging around. Would be worse with rolling release I'm sure.
I like knowing that I will not have to hunt for a LiveCD or a rescue USB drive if a kernel update renders the system unbootable.
This wouldn't be a problem if you have a backup kernel :)
Oh, I do. I would just prefer to work with the package management framework, not work around it.
I think this is something that hooks could do. It's a feature that's in brainstorming. Maybe you could help implement it. http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Pacman_Hooks Cheers!