FS#11169 - should arch reconsidder kernel upgrade policy?

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Christ Schlacta (aarcane) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 02:55 GMT
Last edited by Greg (dolby) - Monday, 11 August 2008, 17:40 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Tobias Powalowski (tpowa)
Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Thomas Bächler (brain0)
Architecture All
Severity High
Priority Normal
Reported Version None
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 2
Private No

Details

when upgrading a kernel, the old kernel is completely removed, and replaced with the new one. driver packages must be upgraded as well, and some systems might not power up after a kernel upgrade with obscure hardware or uncommon configurations. I would like to suggest a new approach to kernel upgrades.

the system should not replace old kernels automatically, but install side by side with them. a set of symlinks in /boot should be maintained to point to the most recently installed kernel, and referenced from /boot/grub/menu.lst and /etc/lilo.conf. a utility should be provided (/sbin/update-kernel or similar) to change to any installed version of the kernel. editing grub to point to an older kernel version would be simple, but using a live CD to recover to an older kernel version is hard..

perhaps an -old kernel and initrd could be added as well that would link to the previous kernel, or whatever version you set it to as a failsafe.

users can choose to remove old kernel versions when they're sure they're not needed, or could possibly set a pacman.conf setting "KeepOldKernels = 3" or whatever makes the most sense upstream.

not sure what changes might need to be made to the kernel PKGBUILDs or pacman to make this change, if it's too unreasonable to implement, please disregard :)
This task depends upon

Closed by  Greg (dolby)
Monday, 11 August 2008, 17:40 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  For same reasons as before.
Comment by Glenn Matthys (RedShift) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 08:04 GMT
Yes, let's make Arch Linux EXACTLY like ubuntu or red hat EL!
Comment by Pawel (pawels133) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 09:14 GMT
That's great idea. No more chrooting etc.

>Yes, let's make Arch Linux EXACTLY like ubuntu or red hat EL!

Can you explain me what's wrong in this idea?
Comment by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 09:14 GMT
-1 from me. enough ways possible to not update your kernel or do it yourself.
Comment by Erwin Van de Velde (evdvelde) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 09:31 GMT
I think it is a good way to have some means of rescue when there are problems with the kernel. There are ways to do it yourself, BUT this solution is easy to add and easy to use and useful for everyone.
Comment by Pierre Schmitz (Pierre) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 09:36 GMT
A non-booting kernel is very uncommon; espaecially with our signoff policy before moving packages to core. I have never had a non boooting kernel for several years. And I think an Arch user should know how to use a live cd or backup his old kernel himself.

This would only complicate things and the situations we would benifit from it are really rare.
Comment by Glenn Matthys (RedShift) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 09:43 GMT
> That's great idea. No more chrooting etc.
>> Yes, let's make Arch Linux EXACTLY like ubuntu or red hat EL!
> Can you explain me what's wrong in this idea?

Because the current state of kernel affairs is just how business is done with Arch Linux. If we keep on adding stuff like this, what's the difference between Arch Linux and other distributions? It's user stupidity that they don't keep old kernels themselves.

I'm not prejudiced against ubuntu or whatever you define as a "user friendly distro".
Comment by Erwin Van de Velde (evdvelde) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 10:07 GMT
> It's user stupidity that they don't keep old kernels themselves.

If every user should do this, this should be automated imo. "Adding stuff like this": it is not like there are still hundreds of questions for the kernel update mechanism.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 10:25 GMT
Be polite or i will close this. Trolling here wont be tollerated.
-1 also if my vote counts
Comment by Tobias Powalowski (tpowa) - Sunday, 10 August 2008, 11:56 GMT
-1 from me this request is old and we don't support old stuff, arch is about to move forward.
Comment by Christ Schlacta (aarcane) - Monday, 11 August 2008, 11:54 GMT
  • Field changed: Percent Complete (100% → 0%)
pacman still removes the old kernel images and init images whenever you upgrade your kernel version, making keeping an old version of the kernel impractical.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Monday, 11 August 2008, 11:55 GMT
Sorry i reopened this by mistake. I guess accept is very close to deny.If anyone has anything to add please do so now
Comment by Christ Schlacta (aarcane) - Monday, 11 August 2008, 17:17 GMT
I maintain that pacman removes or overwrites old kernel versions when you upgrade your kernel, making keeping old versions.. impractical for normal users. I don't ever uninstall my old versions, but I still can't reasonably use them in case of an error.

the recent switch to 2.6.26 caused a handful of problems (nvidia broke, aiglx broke, someone reported a bug booting without acip=off on flyspray). the problem isn't in choosing to keep old kernels, the problem is in being able to because of how pacman handles the upgrades.

Loading...