Ubuntu Kernel Updates

[john e]

> I thought those _were_ installed as part of the base installation.

Odd, but I don't think they are. Maybe they should be?


I keep 2+ kernels, both 386+686 flavors. I use the 686 and keep the
386 around "just in case"

So I usually windup with 6+ actual kernels. Kernels are so small that
there's no reason not to have at-least 2 (but if only 2, make sure
they're not the same kernel compiled to two targets eg: 2.6.16-386 +
2.6.16-686... use something like 2.6.15-686 + 2.6.16-686)


On 3/14/06, Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> lordSauron wrote:
>
> > On 3/13/06, James Gray <james at grayonline.id.au> wrote:
> >> Some may have seen the latest Ubuntu Security Notice (USN-263-1) which
> >> requires a new kernel.  Now like many, I like my systems to run as slick
> >> as possible and I've manually installed a 686 kernel on my lappy and
> >> uninstalled every other "linux-image*" package.
> >
> > Great minds think alike.  I never leave more than one kernel if I can help
> > it.
>
> Backups!  My /boot partition only has room for two kernels, but really, you
> should have at least two.  One that you know works, and one that you
> haven't yet fully tested :-)
> >
> >> There is an EASY solution  though!  There are a number of meta-packages
> >> that *always* depend on the latest kernel for a given architecture:
> >> linux-image-386
> >> linux-image-686
> >> ... etc
>
> I thought those _were_ installed as part of the base installation.
> --
> derek
>
>
> --
> kubuntu-users mailing list
> kubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
>