[arch-general] Multiple Kernels

[Dan McGee]

2010/2/1 Nilesh Govindarajan <lists at itech7.com>:
> 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<benisty.e at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan<lists at itech7.com>
>>>> 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/packages/core/i686/kernel26-lts/
>>>> http://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/kernel26-lts/
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> In my mind, when package version is specified, pacman look if the asked
>>> version is in the repo, and get it if there is such a version.
>>> Lot of app would only provide the current version, but some critical app,
>>> like kernel, could provide one or two older version. Just by letting them
>>> in
>>> the repo.
>>>
>>> But maybe I'm totally wrong, and this will not work cause every kernel
>>> module work only with the current one.
>>>
>> Two words: rolling release.
>>
>> Once kernel26-2.6.32.7-1 is in [core], mirrors will not have
>> kernel26-2.6.32.6-1 anymore. This is one of the central ideas about
>> Arch, that everyone is running basically the same system with different
>> beads on top. kernel26-lts is there for those who want stability (in
>> which case they should use their own kernel26-custom, and perhaps
>> shouldn't use Arch at all). Kernel modules and the like are all
>> targetted for the current kernel in [core], its a tremendous duplication
>> to have to keep versions for all of those, too.
>>
>> In summary, yes you're totally wrong, and no, its not for the reason you
>> think.
>>
>
> 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 ?

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
us!) want a more bleeding-edge distro that uses the latest version of
upstream software. If you don't want this you shouldn't be using Arch.

-Dan