[arch-general] Reboot - Versioned Kernel Installs

[Paul Gideon Dann]

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...

Paul


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> 
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