[arch-general] Keep older kernel intact while upgrading to new kernel

[Victor Lowther]

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 at 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.

-- 
Victor Lowther
LPIC2 UCP RHCE