Web lists-archives.com

Re: Kernel problem?




On Thu 11 Jan 2018 at 15:35:36 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
> David Wright composed on 2018-01-11 12:52 (UTC-0600):
> 
> > On Wed 10 Jan 2018 at 19:48:57 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
> 
> >> deloptes composed on 2018-01-11 01:12 (UTC+0100):
> 
> >> > David Wright wrote:
> 
> >> >>> It seemed to install vmlinuz-4.9.0-5-686-pae (and associated config and
> >> >>> image files, etc) in place of 4.9.0-4-686-pae versions.  Now the system
> 
> >> >> [spaces inserted]  ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ really? It's a different package so
> >> >> it should install alongside the old one.
> 
> >> > no, this is one and the same package - just a different debian revision - so
> >> > the previous gets replaced AFAIK                 
> 
> > Sorry, but evidently you don't.
> 
> Who didn't get what?

Here are the lines whose prefix-quoting displays the answer:

> >> deloptes composed on 2018-01-11 01:12 (UTC+0100):
> >> > no, this is one and the same package - just a different debian revision - so
> >> > the previous gets replaced AFAIK [As Far As I Know]

     ↑___the extra > indicates which lines deloptes wrote.

IOW

who      deloptes …
what     … was mistaken in distinguishing between "package name"
         and "Debian version" in the excerpt posted by the OP.

> >> I think you missed this same thread post from yesterday:
> >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/01/msg00372.html
> 
> > I'm not sure that would help. The first half of that post showed
> > a very idiosyncratic /boot listing which seems to be customised
> > to support your own multibooting setup. I'm not sure whether it
> > would help or confuse the OP.
> 
> I expected it to. Here's the same listing with nonessential lines excised:
> 
> -rw-r--r--  1 17388979 Jan  9 17:45 initrd.img-4.9.0-4-686-pae
> -rw-r--r--  1 17392772 Jan  9 17:44 initrd.img-4.9.0-5-686-pae
> -rw-r--r--  1  3643920 Dec 22 19:39 vmlinuz-4.9.0-4-686-pae
> -rw-r--r--  1  3645296 Jan  4 06:12 vmlinuz-4.9.0-5-686-pae

That's much clearer. But then your post went on to talk about
deleting and copying the (duly noted) additional symlinks.
These (as seen in your earlier post) are things that you've made
for yourself for a purpose that's clear to you, but probably not
clear to most people running a more conventional booting setup.

> Clearly, 4.9.0-4 and 4.9.0-5 pae kernels are present, the very kernels in the OP
> that, as I read, deloptes subsequently claimed were "one and the same package"
> (could not coexist).

That's right: deloptes claim was mistaken, which I pointed out
because errors of fact need correcting.
I didn't mean to mystify you (or anybody else).

It follows that if you don't dist-upgrade (apt-get's sense) when the
ABI is bumped, the new package won't be installed. If you don't have
the generic metapackage installed, you might not even be aware that
the ABI *has* been bumped—you just stop getting kernel upgrades for
no discernible reason. AIUI (do correct me) only the latest ABI's
version gets updated after the change.

Cheers,
David.