On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 07:37:26 -0700 (PDT), Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >and both i586 and x86_64 kernels were tested on a i7-860 workstation and > >on a Acer TravelMate 5720 laptop before submitting to the buildsystem... > > >There is no forcing... > >the old kernel is still installed so you can use it if you need. > > > > >And if you dont like automatic kernel upgrades, uninstall kernel-*-latest > > > I did so, but w/o kernel-*-latest I suppose I won't get any kernel update at > all?! > This is not what I intended... > > > >its always good to know my work is appreciated... > > > Your work in patching and packing and so on is one thing, and the policy of > when the kernel goes and where it goes and what kind of kernel-*-latest > Two things: - would you have so much problems if all these things that broke happened in 2.6.39.x ? Really, the 3.0.0 name is just cosmetics. There are not so big changes between kernel releases these days. Mageia has skipped 2.6.39, so you don't really know if it is 3.0 who hanged behavior or it was introduced in 2.6.39.x. If it was, would you say that 2.6.39 is an unstable kernel ? (the bunch of kernel developers did not). I repeat, from 2.6.39 to 3.0.0 there are no more important chages than from 2.6.38 to 2.6.39. > metapackages exist is a different thing. I still believe that, even in > cauldron, > there should be 2 distinct kernel "branches", not a unique kernel-*-latest > path. - but in cauldron you have _infinte_ kernel branches, as no kernel is uninstalled when you get a new one. The all stay there. The kernel-latest meta package only assures you that you get the new one when it is released. If they dissapear in your box, that is a separate bug. Check you /etc/sysconfig/installkernel. There you can even say that the new kernel is installed but not set as default (NOLINK). -- J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()ono!com> \ Winter is coming...
