On 08/08/2024 23:21, Hans wrote:
Although I owe several Samsung devices, they are all different models. So the
kernel will recognize each different.
lsusb reports vendor ID. If 2 devices have same number, but different
manufacturer strings then "Sasmsung" is a device vendor bug (a fake?).
Yo
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 06:00:53PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 05:27:58PM +0200, Hans wrote:
> > 2024-08-07T13:11:14.047647+02:00 protheus2 kernel: [ 2649.347054] usb
> > 2-1.1: Manufacturer: Sasmsung
> >
> > As we know, it should be "Samsung" not "Sasmsung". I bel
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 05:27:58PM +0200, Hans wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I discovered a little typo bug, which might not be important, but maybe one
> knows, which
> developer can be informed.
>
> Wheh connecting a mobile fdrom Samsung to my computer, the message in
> /var/log/syslog
> tells:
>
Thank you for the info. Filed a bugreport.
Best
Hans
> Kernel messages come kernel package, e.g. linux-image-4.19.0-27-amd64.
>
> Groeten
> Geert Stappers
Hi Andy, I am quite not sure. I filed a bugreport to the kernel team, as it is
only a little typo and does no harm, they can drop it or fix it.
Hmm, your idea came also in my mind already, but I did not check for it.
Although I owe several Samsung devices, they are all different models. So the
NeedRestart::UI::stdio'...
[main] systemd detected
[Core] #719 is a NeedRestart::Interp::Python
[Python] #719: source=/usr/share/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrade-shutdown
[Core] #1535 is a NeedRestart::Interp::Perl
[Perl] #1535: could not get a source file, skipping
[Core] #
On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 12:43:58 +0100
Mike wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a TV card in one of my boxen, which requires a kernel module to
> be built. I've got that all nicely scripted and so I can kick it off
> with relative ease.
>
> The issue is detecting when it needs to be done. ie after a chan
On 7/21/24 07:43, Mike wrote:
Hi all,
I have a TV card in one of my boxen, which requires a kernel module to
be built. I've got that all nicely scripted and so I can kick it off
with relative ease.
The issue is detecting when it needs to be done. ie after a change in
the running kernel. At t
Mike wrote:
> I have a TV card in one of my boxen, which requires a kernel module to
> be built. I've got that all nicely scripted and so I can kick it off
> with relative ease.
>
> The issue is detecting when it needs to be done. ie after a change in
> the running kernel. At the moment, it's
Mike (12024-07-21):
> 1) lsmod | grep
>
> I conceed that doesn't actually indicate the kernel has changed, just
> that the kernel module is missing. However, so far, it being missing
> has consistent indicated a kernel change and rebuilding the driver on a
> false positive isn't really an issue
On 21 Jul 2024 12:43 +0100, from deb...@norgie.net (Mike):
> I have a TV card in one of my boxen, which requires a kernel module to
> be built. I've got that all nicely scripted and so I can kick it off
> with relative ease.
> I thought that I'd just run it past the hive mind and see if anyone ha
Hi all,
I have a TV card in one of my boxen, which requires a kernel module to
be built. I've got that all nicely scripted and so I can kick it off
with relative ease.
The issue is detecting when it needs to be done. ie after a change in
the running kernel. At the moment, it's detected by the
t; On Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 4:27 PM _ djdisodo wrote:
>
>> note that i'm using debian sid and xfce4
>>
>> it shows full of red bars on htop on one of the core between two(i
>> have atom n455 cpu)
>> iirc red bars means kernel threads
>>
>> i've
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021, 4:27 PM _ djdisodo wrote:
> note that i'm using debian sid and xfce4
>
> it shows full of red bars on htop on one of the core between two(i
> have atom n455 cpu)
> iirc red bars means kernel threads
>
> i've tested using debian's boot
note that i'm using debian sid and xfce4
it shows full of red bars on htop on one of the core between two(i
have atom n455 cpu)
iirc red bars means kernel threads
i've tested using debian's boot menu so only thing changed is kernel version
it was fine on kernel 5.10 it's happ
On 1/9/20 2:02 AM, Klaus Singvogel wrote:
R. Ramesh wrote:
I want to make sure
that my current kernel version does not have any limitation to support 64bit
ext4.
Please consult the Kernel Wiki regarding Ext4:
https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
You will notice that Linux
o make sure that my current kernel version does
> > > not have any limitation to support 64bit ext4.
> >
> > You kernel should support the feature, as it was introduced back at the
> > version 3.6 of the kernel - [1].
> >
> > [1] https://ext4.wiki.kernel.o
o make sure that my current kernel version does
> > > not have any limitation to support 64bit ext4.
> >
> > You kernel should support the feature, as it was introduced back at the
> > version 3.6 of the kernel - [1].
> >
> > [1] https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/ind
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 14:35 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 06:08:16PM -0600, R. Ramesh wrote:
> > Before I get the source and build and update e2fsprogs and then the
> > file system, I want to make sure that my current kernel version does
> > not have any limita
Hi.
On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 06:08:16PM -0600, R. Ramesh wrote:
> Before I get the source and build and update e2fsprogs and then the
> file system, I want to make sure that my current kernel version does
> not have any limitation to support 64bit ext4.
You kernel should su
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 09:02 +0100, Klaus Singvogel wrote:
> R. Ramesh wrote:
> > I want to make sure
> > that my current kernel version does not have any limitation to support 64bit
> > ext4.
>
> Please consult the Kernel Wiki regarding Ext4:
>
> https
R. Ramesh wrote:
> I want to make sure
> that my current kernel version does not have any limitation to support 64bit
> ext4.
Please consult the Kernel Wiki regarding Ext4:
https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
You will notice that Linux 2.6.28 was the first suppor
the source and build and update e2fsprogs and then
the file system, I want to make sure that my current kernel version does
not have any limitation to support 64bit ext4. My google searches do
not mention any kernel limitations. I think this is due to my inability
to ask the right question to
Yes. Two of the above.
You are running Debian kernel 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3 which is compatible
with the kernel ABI used in Debian kernel *package* 3.16.0-4-686-pae.
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-5195 confirms
that you want 3.16.36-1+deb8u2.
Thank you for your quick r
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:18:03PM +0100, Georg Stillfried wrote:
> can someone please help me find out which kernel version (and
> sub-version) I have?
uname -a
> $ uname -v
> #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3 (2016-07-02)
>
> $ uname -r
> 3.16.0-4-686-pae
Or that. I
Hello,
can someone please help me find out which kernel version (and
sub-version) I have? Don't scould, I have done the search on Google and
in the Debian documentation on how to find one's kernel version, but I
am confused by the results:
$ uname -v
#1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt2
"? I mean, all those versions seem to always
> have a ".0" which is unused.
>From https://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-versions.html:
,
| Many programs parse the kernel version string reported by the uname
| system call or command and expect to find at least 3 ver
> This is what is called the Kernel-ABI. All modules compiled for
> "3.16.0-4-amd64" will be compatible with all kernels providing this.
I had kind of figured that out, but one thing still puzzles me: why
isn't it "3.16-4-amd64"? I mean, all those versions seem to always have
a ".0" which is unus
solitone wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 1:12:52 PM CET Sven Hartge wrote:
>> This is the real kernel version.
> Hi Sven, and thanks for your explanation. This means that
> 3.16.36-1+deb8u2 is based on the following official version?
> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux
On Saturday, January 14, 2017 1:12:52 PM CET Sven Hartge wrote:
> > uname -v
> > #1 SMP Debian 3.16.36-1+deb8u2 (2016-10-19)
>
> This is the real kernel version.
Hi Sven, and thanks for your explanation. This means that 3.16.36-1+deb8u2 is
based on the following offic
Thanks a lot for the clarification. Very useful info.
14 Янв 2017 г. 14:13 пользователь "Sven Hartge"
написал:
> Вадим Колчев wrote:
>
> > Have up-to-date stable Jessie installation and noticed interesting thing.
> > My kernel release is different from kernel-versio
Вадим Колчев wrote:
> Have up-to-date stable Jessie installation and noticed interesting thing.
> My kernel release is different from kernel-version. Is this okay?
Yes, it is.
> If yes, > why is this so?
> uname -r
> 3.16.0-4-amd64
This is what is called the Kernel-ABI. Al
Hi all,
Have up-to-date stable Jessie installation and noticed interesting thing.
My kernel release is different from kernel-version. Is this okay? If yes,
why is this so?
uname -r
3.16.0-4-amd64
uname -v
#1 SMP Debian 3.16.36-1+deb8u2 (2016-10-19)
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Vadim
Thank you, this confirmed it was linux (3.16.7-ckt9-3~deb8u1)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/b54d10f9e0184999b2be7d22b2b11...@stsdcfs01.techsolllc.com
Am 27.04.2015 um 15:05 schrieb Grant Albitz:
> Sorry for the newb question. I am trying to determine the kernel version of
> Jessie. Uname -r produces: 3.16.0-4-amd64
>
> I have seen other references to 3.16.7 however, and I know 3.16.7 was the
> latest 3.16.x. Is 3.16.0-4 really
Sorry for the newb question. I am trying to determine the kernel version of
Jessie. Uname -r produces: 3.16.0-4-amd64
I have seen other references to 3.16.7 however, and I know 3.16.7 was the
latest 3.16.x. Is 3.16.0-4 really the equivalent of 3.16.7? either way can
someone explain to me how I
Le 27.10.2014 01:12, Santiago Vila a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote:
what kernel version will Jessie have when it became stable ? Is
there
any chance for newer version than 3.16.x (for example 3.17.x,
3.18.x).
Is this important at all? You will
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:56:19PM +0200, Georgi Naplatanov wrote:
> what kernel version will Jessie have when it became stable ? Is there
> any chance for newer version than 3.16.x (for example 3.17.x, 3.18.x).
Is this important at all? You will always be able to build your own
kernel or u
Georgi Naplatanov wrote:
> what kernel version will Jessie have when it became stable ?
3.16.x
> Is there any chance for newer version than 3.16.x (for example 3.17.x,
> 3.18.x).
Zero chance: https://bits.debian.org/2014/07/kernel-version-for-jessie.html
Grüße,
S°
--
Sigmentat
Hi list,
what kernel version will Jessie have when it became stable ? Is there
any chance for newer version than 3.16.x (for example 3.17.x, 3.18.x).
Kind regards
Georgi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
>> What I'm wondering is whether I can get uname to return the desired
>> format by somehow compiling a custom kernel.
>
> Yes you can, by getting the source code from kernel.org.
> If you simply copy the config from the Debians kernel, then IIRC
> # make-kpkg --initrd kernel-image kernel-headers
>
> then parsing it would yield the expected result.
>>> ---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
>>>
>>> Is the reported kernel-version string, "3.12-1-amd64",
>>> something that I could change by compiling a custom kernel?
>>
>> Might a shell script that ou
On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 22:58:40 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> abiname shouldn't change should it?
>>
>>
> I wouldn't think so - but I also don't know. However, if you do change
> something basic like the kernel version, what else will it affect? You
&
On 2014-02-22 00:20 +0100, Thomas Vaughan wrote:
> I have downloaded some proprietary software that I want to install onto a
> 64-bit Debian machine. The software is written for 64-bit linux, but the
> kernel version reported, for example, by uname (and perhaps by some system
> c
r were the string
3.12.9-1
then parsing it would yield the expected result.
---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel-version string, "3.12-1-amd64", something
that I could change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
O
they don't get the expected result. If the uname -r were the string
>>>>> 3.12.9-1
>>>>> then parsing it would yield the expected result.
>>>>> ---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the reported kernel-version string, &
t;>> 3.12.9-1
>>>> then parsing it would yield the expected result.
>>>> ---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
>>>>
>>>> Is the reported kernel-version string, "3.12-1-amd64", something that I
>>>> could change by compiling a cus
-END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
Is the reported kernel-version string, "3.12-1-amd64", something that I could
change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
Or sed?
Or export?
Or, um, more information about what Debian release is being used
Forwarded Message
From: Ralf Mardorf
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Re: Third-Party Software Needs Non-Debian Format for Kernel
Version
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 03:28:15 +0100
Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 19:20 -0700, Thomas Vaughan wrote:
> W
it would yield the expected result.
>>> ---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
>>>
>>> Is the reported kernel-version string, "3.12-1-amd64", something that I
>>> could change by compiling a custom kernel?
>>
>> Might a shell script that output the expected strin
it would yield the expected result.
>>> ---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
>>>
>>> Is the reported kernel-version string, "3.12-1-amd64", something
>>> that I could change by compiling a custom kernel?
>>
>> Might a shell script that output the expected string w
t.
>> ---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
>>
>> Is the reported kernel-version string, "3.12-1-amd64",
>> something that I could change by compiling a custom kernel?
>
> Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
An appropriately named shell script i
the uname -r were the string
>> 3.12.9-1
>> then parsing it would yield the expected result.
>> ---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
>>
>> Is the reported kernel-version string, "3.12-1-amd64", something that I
>> could change by compiling a custom kernel?
&
Forwarded Message
From: Ralf Mardorf
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Third-Party Software Needs Non-Debian Format for Kernel
Version
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 01:54:59 +0100
Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4
Forwarded Message
From: Ralf Mardorf
To: debian
ld yield the expected result.
> ---END QUOTE FROM VENDOR---
>
> Is the reported kernel-version string, "3.12-1-amd64", something that I could
> change by compiling a custom kernel?
Might a shell script that output the expected string work?
--
Glenn Englis
I have downloaded some proprietary software that I want to install onto a
64-bit Debian machine. The software is written for 64-bit linux, but the
kernel version reported, for example, by uname (and perhaps by some system
call that the compiled software uses) is not in a format that the software
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:36:02 -0500 (EST), Michael Gulick wrote:
>
> I think my only option if I want automatic upgrades is to keep the
> abiname constant. I'm assuming (and I'm not sure whether this
> assumption is correct) that all the third party modules (primarily
> nvidia drivers and vmwar
me across your site in my searches prior to posting this. It
was very helpful, but as you've seen it didn't quite have what I was
looking for. I'll read it in depth some more and let you know if I have
any feedback.
I'd be happy to share more details about how I rebuilt the
ptitude is
what you would use. Unfortunately, I know of no way to do what you want
to do. Keep this in mind. Up until etch, the Debian kernel team used
make-kpkg to produce its stock Debian kernels. But beginning with lenny,
the Debian kernel team stopped using make-kpkg to produce its stock
kerne
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Michael Gulick wrote:
>
> I'm looking for a way to override the default kernel package versions
> generated by make-kpkg. With 3.0+ kernels, the kernel sublevel (as in
> VERSION.PATCHLEVEL.SUBLEVEL), which is incremented when there are stable
> updates for a kernel
Hi,
I'm looking for a way to override the default kernel package versions
generated by make-kpkg. With 3.0+ kernels, the kernel sublevel (as in
VERSION.PATCHLEVEL.SUBLEVEL), which is incremented when there are stable
updates for a kernel release, is used to generate the package name. This
produc
Thanks for the info -- Running kernel 2.6.x.xx so I know which USB
driver I need to install
On 11/08/13 01:02 PM, Kruppt wrote:
On 2013-08-11, John Lindsay wrote:
What I want to know is how do I determine the
kernel version of my debian 6 system so
I can load the correct
On 2013-08-11, John Lindsay wrote:
> What I want to know is how do I determine the
> kernel version of my debian 6 system so
> I can load the correct version?
>
>
> John
>
>
run "uname -a from a term"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@l
John Lindsay grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
>
> What I want to know is how do I determine the kernel version of my
> debian 6 system so I can load the correct version?
"uname -r" will do it. "man uname" for more. :-)
--Dave
smime.p7s
Desc
.ko to
/lib/modules//kernel/drivers/usb/serial
3. insmod
/lib/modules/
4. insmod cp210x.ko
What I want to know is how do I determine the kernel version of my
debian 6 system so I can load the correct version?
John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a sub
2012-10-21 18:34, Gábor Hársfalvi skrev:
2012/10/20 Johan Grönqvist:
2012-10-20 10:44, Gábor Hársfalvi skrev:
Good! Now you know exactly what edits to what config files that you need to
undo.
"Now you know exactly what edits to what config files that you need to
undo." -> Yes, I tried that b
n screen it showed me a black blank screen with a flashing cursor
>> - not mouse - and after more waiting it stayed there too.
>
>
> Good! Now you know exactly what edits to what config files that you need to
> undo.
>
>
>>
>> I reboot after it and start with a previ
- and after more waiting it stayed there too.
Good! Now you know exactly what edits to what config files that you need
to undo.
I reboot after it and start with a previous kernel version number -
the number ends with 486, not 686 - with Rescue Mode. It started and
after Ctrl+D - when i
here too.
I reboot after it and start with a previous kernel version number -
the number ends with 486, not 686 - with Rescue Mode. It started and
after Ctrl+D - when it needs - it booted the gui succesfully and
everything worked well.
I would like to start the computer with the newest available ke
Sthu Deus wrote:
> apt-cache search linux-image
> ...
> Is there a more elegant way?
In addition to the ways suggested by others there is also a program to
query the database and provide other useful information.
apt-show-versions | grep linux-image
Mine shows:
linux-image-2.6.32-5-686/sque
On Sb, 17 dec 11, 01:28:59, Sthu Deus wrote:
>
> How do I find out if there is a new version of linux kernel package is
> available? - I mean, having 3.1 installed, to know that 3.2 is
> available?
Beside Camaleón's suggestion, aptitude keeps track of "new"[1] packages.
You can show the list wit
On 12/16/2011 02:20 PM, Brian wrote:
On Sat 17 Dec 2011 at 01:28:59 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
How do I find out if there is a new version of linux kernel package is
available? - I mean, having 3.1 installed, to know that 3.2 is
available?
For the present I do it by
apt-cache search linux-image
; apt-get -V dist-upgrade" is what I use to run in
wheezy.
> PS apt-cache policy linux-image-exact_version shows only updates for the
> version - and not a new kernel version s 3.2 vs. 3.1
Anyway, AFAICS the latest available kernel in Debian is 3.1 (testing/sid)
and 3.2 (for experimen
On Sat 17 Dec 2011 at 01:28:59 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> How do I find out if there is a new version of linux kernel package is
> available? - I mean, having 3.1 installed, to know that 3.2 is
> available?
>
> For the present I do it by
>
> apt-cache search linux-image
>
> and then look for wha
?
PS apt-cache policy linux-image-exact_version shows only updates for
the version - and not a new kernel version s 3.2 vs. 3.1
Thanks for Your time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.
Hi.
On Monday 16 August 2010 03:00, T o n g wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to get the kernel version of a chroot system?
>
> I tried
>
> chroot chroot_fs uname -r
>
> but it only reports the kernel version of my current system, not the
> chroot system.
C
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:00:54 -0400 (EDT), Tong wrote:
>
> Is it possible to get the kernel version of a chroot system?
I'm not sure that I understand what question you are really asking.
I am assuming that you have, for example, used a Debian installation
CD as a rescue CD on a syst
Hi,
Is it possible to get the kernel version of a chroot system?
I tried
chroot chroot_fs uname -r
but it only reports the kernel version of my current system, not the
chroot system.
Any other way?
Thanks
--
Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
http://xpt.sourceforge.net/techdocs
ch main contrib
>> deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib.
>>
>> This gives me kernel version: 2.6.18-5.
>> At "http://packages.debian.org/etch"; it shows kernel version 2.6.18-6.
>>
>> I am using dselect, and I am wondering why the differences in ker
This gives me kernel version: 2.6.18-5.
> At "http://packages.debian.org/etch"; it shows kernel version 2.6.18-6.
>
> I am using dselect, and I am wondering why the differences in kernel
> version.
> --
>
> TIA
> Peace
>
> Greg Madden
It appears kernel 2.6
I have a Lenny box running the 2.6.18 kernel. I have the following sources
added to the Lenny ones:
deb http://mirrors.kernel.org/debian/ etch main contrib
deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib.
This gives me kernel version: 2.6.18-5.
At "http://packages.debian.org
--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Jan Brosius wrote:
> From: Jan Brosius
> Subject: kernel version of debian testing.
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 6:55 PM
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version
> of debian-
On 12/18/08 12:26, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2008-12-18 19:08 +0100, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 12/18/08 12:55, Jan Brosius wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version of
debian-testing? I saw on the internet that my hardware (more
precisely my ethernet card) needs kernel
On 2008-12-18 19:08 +0100, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 12/18/08 12:55, Jan Brosius wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version of
>> debian-testing? I saw on the internet that my hardware (more
>> precisely my ethernet card) needs
On 12/18/08 12:55, Jan Brosius wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version of
debian-testing? I saw on the internet that my hardware (more precisely
my ethernet card) needs kernel 2.6.27-*.
thanks for any information,
$ apt-cache search linux-image | grep ^linux
Hi,
Does anyone know the kernel version in the latest version of debian-testing? I
saw on the internet that my hardware (more precisely my ethernet card) needs
kernel 2.6.27-*.
thanks for any information,
Jan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/21/08 17:10, Henry Luciano wrote:
[snip]
>
> Out of curiosity, why hang onto an old Pentium when you can pick up an
> old Athlon or P3 for probably nothing? Aside from not dumping yet
> another system into the waste stream that is.
Maybe(?) be
Henry,
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Henry Luciano wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why hang onto an old Pentium when you can pick up an old
> Athlon or P3 for probably nothing? Aside from not dumping yet another system
> into the waste stream that is.
Because this computer was long ago paid for and there
Account for Debian group mail wrote:
My question is, on the upgrade should I install the kernel-image-2.6-386
or the kernel-image-2.6-686? I see no 586tsc.
Wow, this brings back memories (COAST modules anyone?) IIRC the 686 image will
barf on your Pentium MMX as the Pentium Pro instruction set
On Monday 21 July 2008 22:49, Account for Debian group mail wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We're in the process of upgrading some old computers from sarge to etch.
>
> On one computer (used only as a firewall) it has:
>
> Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled.
> CPU: Intel Pentium MMX stepping 03
> Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled.
> CPU: Intel Pentium MMX stepping 03
>
> Anyway the kernel it is running is:
>
> vmlinuz-2.4.27-4-586tsc for the Pentium-Classic.
>
> My question is, on the upgrade should I install the kernel-image-2.6-386
> or the kernel-image-2.6-686? I see no
Hello,
We're in the process of upgrading some old computers from sarge to etch.
On one computer (used only as a firewall) it has:
Intel Pentium with F0 0F bug - workaround enabled.
CPU: Intel Pentium MMX stepping 03
Anyway the kernel it is running is:
vmlinuz-2.4.27-4-586tsc for the Pentium-C
this happens? Is it a bug in the
> > updater? Can anyone tell me how to stop this behaviour?
> >
>
> Hello Andrw,
>
> I sent this to both you and the list given your "whoever is out there".
>
> There have been repeated bugs found in the kernel that hav
your "whoever is out there".
There have been repeated bugs found in the kernel that have been patched
without changing the kernel version. So yes, you should continue to
keep your system up-to-date even if the kernel version stays the same.
I don't know what "updater&qu
Hi whoever is out there.
I recently installed debian etch in a virtual box vm. Several times
since then the updater has wanted to update the kernel image to the same
version as the current kernel, which is 2.6.18-6-k7. I let it do it the
first couple of times since i was new to debian, but it has
koffiejunkie wrote:
Jeff D wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
When the installer came up, I hit Ctrl+Alt+F2 for a console, and did
a uname -a. It gave me 2.6.18. This is what I want to check before
downloading: which kernel the install CD uses, not which kernel it
installs.
a
koffiejunkie wrote:
> It was the daily build netinstall from 13 July that I downloaded (I guess
> the builds are made US time, so 14 July wasn't out yet).
There are two sets of builds. It seems you must somehow be downloading
the set that still uses etch's version of the installer. Although it's
Jeff D wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
When the installer came up, I hit Ctrl+Alt+F2 for a console, and did a
uname -a. It gave me 2.6.18. This is what I want to check before
downloading: which kernel the install CD uses, not which kernel it
installs.
are you sure you have
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
Jeff D wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, koffiejunkie wrote:
Alan Ianson wrote:
On Sun July 15 2007 07:53, koffiejunkie wrote:
I checked after booting off the disc - it was 2.6.18
I used the businesscard iso, maybe there is a difference.
I'll give tha
On Sun July 15 2007 14:10, koffiejunkie wrote:
> I'm not really concerned with which kernel the installer installs. I
> need the install CD itself to run the 2.6.21 kernel.
>
> I just tried today's (15 July) businesscard ISO, booted of it with the
> following command:
>
> expertgui vga=0x342
I w
1 - 100 of 225 matches
Mail list logo
