Crash while upgrading kernel & stable releases
ubuntu-ml at tower-net.de
Wed Jun 22 05:12:03 CDT 2005
Matt Zimmerman wrote on Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 15:47:16 -0700:
> This is not a question of availability; you have proposed that we should
> change the way that we name our kernels, and I have explained why we name
> them the way that we do.
> Every time the package name is changed, if the user has added modules to
> their kernel, those modules become unavailable with the next reboot and need
> to be recompiled.
The modules can be compiled before reboot for the kernel used after
You won't do a safer kernel replace because there is more work to be
done? You don't even think about a better solution?
> Furthermore, this would drastically increase the number of kernels present
> on the system. The kernel in Ubuntu 4.10 has been update 19 times since its
> release! If all of these kernels remained installed, they would occupy a
> gigabyte of disk space, and create 38 entries in the GRUB menu.
There could be another package which removes old kernel packages via an
init script during boot with new kernel. Just another suggestion.
> > > That is not true. The packaging system is very careful about this, and an
> > > interrupted installation should not make the system unbootable.
> > What is not true? That a kernel update doesn't finish succesful if I
> > switch off power during write?
> > The packaging system moves the old files to .dpkg-tmp and installs
> > the new files. If succesful it deletes dpkg-tmp or it restores the old
> > state. Right?
> No, that is not right. The files are all unpacked to <filename>.dpkg-new,
> and then, when unpacking is complete, they are all renamed into place. Each
> rename is atomic, and because the old and new kernels are compatible, even
> if the system has a mixture of old and new files, this is generally not
> catastrophic, and the system will still boot.
Is it done different in Debian and Ubuntu? I've at the moment only a Sid
Laptop to have a look. Here there is no dpkg-new.
Also there was a problem on upgrade or this discussion wouldn't be. What
do you say about it?
> I understand that you want to help, but it is important to investigate and
> understand the problem before proposing a solution. Otherwise, it will be
> frustrating for everyone involved.
I propose something, I think it would improve it. Of course you can talk
about, rethink and improve it even further. It's only a suggestion.
I don't see a real problem, only selfmade problem.
It should not be a ready solution. A solution would be an useable
It's very difficult to bring in changes like this to distibutions like
yours. I don't know why. It's again like the suggestion I've made years
ago for Debian to introduce different runlevels. It was blocked. Now it
is again published in Debian Weekly News on a wish-list for Etch. Very
funny. Do you really think about what people write you?
More information about the ubuntu-devel