2014-03-08 8:27 GMT+04:00 Kir Kolyshkin <k...@openvz.org>: > On 03/07/2014 06:21 PM, spameden wrote: > > Btw, Kir, there is no version anymore in uname -a. > > Could you fix this at least to display current version, e.g. instead of: > > # uname -r > 2.6.32-openvz-amd64 > > display: > # uname -r > 2.6.32-openvz-042stab084.17-amd64 > > > Again, it is the same as in stock Debian kernel. While their version is > 3.2.54-2, > uname shows 3.2.0-4. >
Partly true... $ uname -a Linux hostname 3.2.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.2.51-1 x86_64 GNU/Linux as you can see there is actual version at the end.. > > > > and also consider reverting to the old system if you can.. > > > > Yeah, I guess I should do it, just waiting for someone who knows Debian > more than me to chime in. > OK, thanks for the info. > > > > > 2014-03-07 18:45 GMT+04:00 Narcis Garcia <informat...@actiu.net>: > >> I think that is a good strategy to have a main package to be manually >> installed: >> linux-image-openvz-amd64 >> linux-image-openvz-686 >> >> But fully versioned as its dependencies (042stab084.26) >> And with a dependency to a version-named package, such as: >> linux-image-2.6.32-42.84.26-openvz-amd64 >> >> In this way, upgrading the main package this will install the new >> versions of dependencies. I think that this is the way Debian works, and >> this allows to have old and new files installed simultaneously. >> >> To have the old and new kernels allow to test new one before removing >> old one. >> >> >> El 07/03/14 02:28, Kir Kolyshkin ha escrit: >> > On 03/02/2014 02:01 PM, spameden wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-03-03 0:38 GMT+04:00 Ola Lundqvist <o...@inguza.com >> >> <mailto:o...@inguza.com>>: >> >> >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> Problem fixed now. >> >> I had fixed the problem temporarily, but I had forgotten to >> >> upgrade to the debarchiver version with the fix so it will not >> >> happen again. Now I have done the upgrade and fixed the problem >> >> properly. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think it's not fixed properly: >> >> >> >> 1) wrong version of linux-image: >> >> # dpkg -l|grep linux-image-openvz >> >> ii linux-image-openvz-amd64 >> >> 042+1 amd64 OpenVZ Linux kernel >> >> (meta-package) >> >> >> >> 2) # ls /boot |grep openvz >> >> config-2.6.32-openvz-042stab084.17-amd64 >> >> *config-2.6.32-openvz-amd64* >> >> initrd.img-2.6.32-openvz-042stab084.17-amd64 >> >> *initrd.img-2.6.32-openvz-amd64* >> >> System.map-2.6.32-openvz-042stab084.17-amd64 >> >> *System.map-2.6.32-openvz-amd64* >> >> vmlinuz-2.6.32-openvz-042stab084.17-amd64 >> >> *vmlinuz-2.6.32-openvz-amd64* >> >> >> >> so now we are missing usual version here in the package.. that's >> >> actually very bad ... can you look into it? >> >> >> >> many thanks. >> > >> > This is intentional, and I changed it after looking into how default >> > Debian kernel is packaged/versioned. >> > >> > If you take a look, they have [meta]package linux-image-amd64 which >> requires >> > package linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64. The latter (currently) has a version >> of >> > 3.2.54-2 and this version is changed (incremented) with every release, >> while >> > package name stays the same (linux-image-3.2.0-4-amd64). Also, vzkernel >> > name stays the same -- it is /boot/vmlinuz-3.2.0-4-amd64 in different >> > versions. >> > I am using the very same approach now for OpenVZ kernels. >> > >> > Previously I was adding the VZ version (i.e. 042stab0xy.z) into kernel >> > package name, >> > and it was added to vmlinuz and the /lib/modules directory name as well. >> > The problem >> > is, you need to specify a different dependency in >> > linux-image-openvz-amd64 metapackage, >> > and apt-get upgrade complains that it can't upgrade the system since a >> > new version >> > of an installed package (linux-image-amd64) requires a package that is >> > not installed yet. >> > The problem could be fixed by running dist-upgrade, but eventually I >> > decided that >> > this message is a hint that I package openvz kernels improperly, that >> > lead me to >> > looking into a way standard Debian kernels are packaged and >> implementing it >> > the same way for OpenVZ kernels. >> > >> > I am not a Debian guru and am very open to suggestions on how to >> improve >> > this. >> > Perhaps we can return to the older versioning scheme and ask people to >> > use dist-upgrade. >> > Or maybe I am totally missing something. Please help. >> > >> > Kir. >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Users mailing list >> > Users@openvz.org >> > https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@openvz.org >> https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing > listUsers@openvz.orghttps://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@openvz.org > https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openvz.org https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
