Hi, 2014-03-17 2:14 GMT+01:00 Cyril Brulebois <[email protected]>: > Wojciech Górski <[email protected]> (2014-03-17): >> I have no experience with other distros, but the debian based ones >> have a numbering schema allowing alphabetical ordering, not >> accidentally I guess ;) So, this should be safe. If someone plays with >> the numbering - well, aren't they asking for trouble? > > How do you think 3.9 vs 3.10 compare?
Riiiiiiight, thought it was 3.09. OK, the patch doesn't fix anything then. > >> Also, grub's behaviour in general is to favor more recent kernels over >> older ones, as any update makes the freshly installed one default, so >> this is what I would expect. > > Well, grub does version sorting. See: /etc/grub.d/10_linux, particularly > | while [ "x$list" != "x" ] ; do > | linux=`version_find_latest $list` > | ... > | done > > and version_find_latest's definition in grub-mkconfig_lib which is > sourced at the very beginning. Indeed it does! And doesn't do it in 30_os-prober. So this is where the bug really is IMO. Should I reassign this bug? Regards, WG -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/canfft+a_fx-77fk1oqajuo_ziqi-xur0sdy+knccmdmgcky...@mail.gmail.com
