[arch-general] Reboot - Versioned Kernel Installs
Hi all, Since the next kernel will be 3.0 , the kernel26 naming is meaningless from the next kernel. I think this is also a good time to consider implementing versioned kernel install. Agreed arch has a policy of 1 package per software in the official repos. While this attitude is acceptable for Xorg or windows managers or even some low level utilities, problems with those can be corrected if the system can boot to a shell atleast (init 1 or 3). But if the kernel fails to boot and under the assumption that the user hdoes not have any rescue system/distro handy he/she cannot boot into the system (atleast not at that moment). Without a working kernel it is not possible to boot to a shell to run any damn command. While this topic has already been discussed at [1] the discussion was slow and has not lead to any fruitful result. This post is mainly to reach out to a larger audience and decide on how to go about since the upsteam version change provides the right time for Arch to reconsider the same. Another discussion at [2] is about removing the word kernel from the initramfs image. If in case versioned kernel proposal is accepted then the initramfs also (automatically) becomes versioned to match the kernel. Atleast Dave Reisner (falconindy) took the first step by making the change in his geninit program. I understand this might require changes in the way mkinitcpio (or geninit if at all it becomes default) and the way pacman handles different versions of same packages. Please join in. [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702 [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18719 Regards. keshav
On 6 June 2011 10:02, KESHAV P.R. <skodabenz@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, Since the next kernel will be 3.0 , the kernel26 naming is meaningless from the next kernel. I think this is also a good time to consider implementing versioned kernel install. Agreed arch has a policy of 1 package per software in the official repos. While this attitude is acceptable for Xorg or windows managers or even some low level utilities, problems with those can be corrected if the system can boot to a shell atleast (init 1 or 3). But if the kernel fails to boot and under the assumption that the user hdoes not have any rescue system/distro handy he/she cannot boot into the system (atleast not at that moment). Without a working kernel it is not possible to boot to a shell to run any damn command. While this topic has already been discussed at [1] the discussion was slow and has not lead to any fruitful result. This post is mainly to reach out to a larger audience and decide on how to go about since the upsteam version change provides the right time for Arch to reconsider the same. Another discussion at [2] is about removing the word kernel from the initramfs image. If in case versioned kernel proposal is accepted then the initramfs also (automatically) becomes versioned to match the kernel. Atleast Dave Reisner (falconindy) took the first step by making the change in his geninit program. I understand this might require changes in the way mkinitcpio (or geninit if at all it becomes default) and the way pacman handles different versions of same packages. Please join in.
[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702 [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18719
Regards.
keshav
I have kernel26-lts installed as a backup kernel, and this is all that's really necessary for rolling back broken kernel updates. I've been bitten by a BTRFS bug once and rolled back with -lts no problem. -1 from me on keeping multiple kernel versions installed; I really like that arch doesn't keep 6 old kernels around. While we're at it, +1 for calling the kernel package "linux" for version 3.0. -- Tavian Barnes
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Tavian Barnes <tavianator@tavianator.com> wrote:
On 6 June 2011 10:02, KESHAV P.R. <skodabenz@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, Since the next kernel will be 3.0 , the kernel26 naming is meaningless from the next kernel. I think this is also a good time to consider implementing versioned kernel install. Agreed arch has a policy of 1 package per software in the official repos. While this attitude is acceptable for Xorg or windows managers or even some low level utilities, problems with those can be corrected if the system can boot to a shell atleast (init 1 or 3). But if the kernel fails to boot and under the assumption that the user hdoes not have any rescue system/distro handy he/she cannot boot into the system (atleast not at that moment). Without a working kernel it is not possible to boot to a shell to run any damn command. While this topic has already been discussed at [1] the discussion was slow and has not lead to any fruitful result. This post is mainly to reach out to a larger audience and decide on how to go about since the upsteam version change provides the right time for Arch to reconsider the same. Another discussion at [2] is about removing the word kernel from the initramfs image. If in case versioned kernel proposal is accepted then the initramfs also (automatically) becomes versioned to match the kernel. Atleast Dave Reisner (falconindy) took the first step by making the change in his geninit program. I understand this might require changes in the way mkinitcpio (or geninit if at all it becomes default) and the way pacman handles different versions of same packages. Please join in.
[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702 [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18719
Regards.
keshav
I have kernel26-lts installed as a backup kernel, and this is all that's really necessary for rolling back broken kernel updates. I've been bitten by a BTRFS bug once and rolled back with -lts no problem. -1 from me on keeping multiple kernel versions installed; I really like that arch doesn't keep 6 old kernels around.
While we're at it, +1 for calling the kernel package "linux" for version 3.0.
-- Tavian Barnes
Agreed with Tavian Barnes. Also, don't call it "linux30" just call it "linux"
On Monday, June 06, 2011 11:34:53 Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Tavian Barnes
<tavianator@tavianator.com> wrote:
On 6 June 2011 10:02, KESHAV P.R. <skodabenz@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all, Since the next kernel will be 3.0 , the kernel26 naming is meaningless from the next kernel. I think this is also a good time to consider implementing versioned kernel install. Agreed arch has a policy of 1 package per software in the official repos. While this attitude is acceptable for Xorg or windows managers or even some low level utilities, problems with those can be corrected if the system can boot to a shell atleast (init 1 or 3). But if the kernel fails to boot and under the assumption that the user hdoes not have any rescue system/distro handy he/she cannot boot into the system (atleast not at that moment). Without a working kernel it is not possible to boot to a shell to run any damn command. While this topic has already been discussed at [1] the discussion was slow and has not lead to any fruitful result. This post is mainly to reach out to a larger audience and decide on how to go about since the upsteam version change provides the right time for Arch to reconsider the same. Another discussion at [2] is about removing the word kernel from the initramfs image. If in case versioned kernel proposal is accepted then the initramfs also (automatically) becomes versioned to match the kernel. Atleast Dave Reisner (falconindy) took the first step by making the change in his geninit program. I understand this might require changes in the way mkinitcpio (or geninit if at all it becomes default) and the way pacman handles different versions of same packages. Please join in.
[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702 [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18719
Regards.
keshav
I have kernel26-lts installed as a backup kernel, and this is all that's really necessary for rolling back broken kernel updates. I've been bitten by a BTRFS bug once and rolled back with -lts no problem. -1 from me on keeping multiple kernel versions installed; I really like that arch doesn't keep 6 old kernels around.
While we're at it, +1 for calling the kernel package "linux" for version 3.0.
-- Tavian Barnes
Agreed with Tavian Barnes. Also, don't call it "linux30" just call it "linux"
Or just 'kernel.' And yes, -1 on multiple kernels. That was one of the more idiotic brain- damaged practices of Ubuntu that drove me away in the first place.
On Monday, June 06, 2011 11:34:53 Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Tavian Barnes
<tavianator@tavianator.com> wrote:
Hi all, Since the next kernel will be 3.0 , the kernel26 naming is meaningless from the next kernel. I think this is also a good time to consider implementing versioned kernel install. Agreed arch has a policy of 1 package per software in the official repos. While this attitude is acceptable for Xorg or windows managers or even some low level utilities, problems with those can be corrected if the system can boot to a shell atleast (init 1 or 3). But if the kernel fails to boot and under the assumption that the user hdoes not have any rescue system/distro handy he/she cannot boot into the system (atleast not at that moment). Without a working kernel it is not possible to boot to a shell to run any damn command. While this topic has already been discussed at [1] the discussion was slow and has not lead to any fruitful result. This post is mainly to reach out to a larger audience and decide on how to go about since the upsteam version change provides the right time for Arch to reconsider the same. Another discussion at [2] is about removing the word kernel from the initramfs image. If in case versioned kernel proposal is accepted then the initramfs also (automatically) becomes versioned to match the kernel. Atleast Dave Reisner (falconindy) took the first step by making the change in his geninit program. I understand this might require changes in the way mkinitcpio (or geninit if at all it becomes default) and the way pacman handles different versions of same packages. Please join in.
[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702 [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18719
Regards.
keshav I have kernel26-lts installed as a backup kernel, and this is all
On 6 June 2011 10:02, KESHAV P.R.<skodabenz@gmail.com> wrote: that's really necessary for rolling back broken kernel updates. I've been bitten by a BTRFS bug once and rolled back with -lts no problem. -1 from me on keeping multiple kernel versions installed; I really like that arch doesn't keep 6 old kernels around.
While we're at it, +1 for calling the kernel package "linux" for version 3.0.
-- Tavian Barnes Agreed with Tavian Barnes. Also, don't call it "linux30" just call it "linux" Or just 'kernel.'
And yes, -1 on multiple kernels. That was one of the more idiotic brain- damaged practices of Ubuntu that drove me away in the first place. I don't see how kernel naming is on topic with this discussion, anyway i wouldn't see like to see a preserved kernel on archlinux we already have kernel26-lts and the fallback image. Keeping more kernels would cost a) more time, b) more bugs on the
On 06/06/2011 09:17 PM, Yaro Kasear wrote: tracker and wouldn't in my point of view be the vision of rolling release. You can always revert back a kernel version via pacman -U or chrooting into your install. -- Jelle van der Waa
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Tavian Barnes <tavianator@tavianator.com> wrote:
I have kernel26-lts installed as a backup kernel, and this is all that's really necessary for rolling back broken kernel updates. I've been bitten by a BTRFS bug once and rolled back with -lts no problem. -1 from me on keeping multiple kernel versions installed; I really like that arch doesn't keep 6 old kernels around.
I agree. The reason I am against keeping old kernels around is that we would not be able to test user space against all the possible combinations, so it would not be a good idea to suggest that we do (we do try to support all sorts of self-compiled kernels, but at least if you compile your own kernel it is pretty obvious that it will not be as well tested as the "official" ones). One possibility would be to do like upstream does and always rename the previous kernel to .old. That should keep the last known working kernel around while making it clear that it should not be relied on for day-to-day use (and that it will get overwritten on the next kernel upgrade so these things won't get old). That said, I'm not involved with packaging the kernel, so if you want anything to change with how it is packaged (maybe after this discussion is over), it would be best to file a feature request on FS. Cheers, Tom
I'd say it would be better to have only one current and one lts kernel (or whatever it ends up being called). Having multiple older versions of the same package is not what it said in the can, arch uses the latest stable versions of packages and not the latest plus some number of older ones. -- Mauro Santos
participants (7)
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
KESHAV P.R.
-
Mauro Santos
-
Tavian Barnes
-
Thomas Dziedzic
-
Tom Gundersen
-
Yaro Kasear