[arch-general] Reboot - Versioned Kernel Installs

Jelle van der Waa jelle at vdwaa.nl
Mon Jun 6 17:01:42 EDT 2011

On 06/06/2011 09:17 PM, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On Monday, June 06, 2011 11:34:53 Thomas Dziedzic wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Tavian Barnes
>> <tavianator at tavianator.com>  wrote:
>>> On 6 June 2011 10:02, KESHAV P.R.<skodabenz at 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.
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 
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

More information about the arch-general mailing list