It would appear that on Jun 10, Heiko Baums did say:
Am Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:48:57 +0200 schrieb Vic Demuzere <vic@demuzere.be>:
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@ttlc.net>>