[arch-general] Reboot - Versioned Kernel Installs
Paul Gideon Dann
pdgiddie at gmail.com
Wed Jun 8 10:12:04 EDT 2011
I would really like to the kernel that is being replaced kept as a backup. If
the latest kernel breaks your hardware, or something else goes wrong, I'd like
to have the option of using the kernel that was just replaced, because it's
known to work.
I wouldn't want more than one old version of the kernel, though.
Also, although the -lts kernel is good for this, it isn't intended to solve
this problem, and isn't always a perfect fit. For instance, my new laptop has
UEFI-related issues that are only being addressed in the *very* latest
kernels. I'm not sure -lts would boot for me, but I know that my *current*
kernel boots; seems a pity to throw it out it straight away on upgrade, before
I can test that the new kernel boots OK...
On Monday 06 June 2011 18:23:50 Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Tavian Barnes <tavianator at tavianator.com>
> > 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.
More information about the arch-general