ianw1974 Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 I built my system today with MDK 10.1 OE and applied all updates (Normal/Security/Bug Fixes), because of an unsuccessful KDE 3.4 upgrade. Anyway, that aside. I installed the kernel source for kernel-2.6.8.1-12, as I needed this to install the drivers for my Intel video card. What i subsequently found is that a security update has appeared to upgrade the kernel source to 2.6.8.1-24. If I do this, surely I will also need to urpmi the kernel version for this as well?!? Yesterday, before the end of my KDE 3.4 upgrade, I did apply kernel 2.6.11 as I thought it would fix a few problems, but I found it took a real long time to boot, so I figured that this kernel may not be for 10.1 or whether the KDE 3.4 upgrade didn't help either. Whichever way, what's my best way forward. Shall I upgrade the kernel to 2.6.8.1-24 and install then upgrade the kernel source that matches this, or apply the later kernel? If so, is it just a case of installing the rpm, or are there a few more things I need to take into consideration? Appreciate your help on this one, as I'm trying to save another rebuild!!!!! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 (edited) When I used 10.1 I did the same thing you are probably going to do, install the new -24 and its' source. I encountered no problems with it (had to use the source for my own means). It's the safest way to ensure everything works flawlessly, i.e., preventing a potential problem (of course, if the new version doesn't cause a new problem, but that's not usually the case with such small updates as x.x.1 or x.x.x-1). p.s. found your kernel thread Edited May 5, 2005 by solarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted May 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 I did that with 2.6.11, and then I had the long boot prob and sound failed when ALSA went from 1.0.6 to 1.0.8 The system still booted however, it just took a lot longer to boot than the original kernel of 2.6.8.1-12. So, if I upgrade to 2.6.8.1-24, would this be a major problem for me and introduce what I experienced so far (except that I don't have KDE 3.4 this time)? Or does anyone know if 2.6.11 kernel runs OK with MDK 10.1 OE without any additional changes other than the updates? I'm new to all this sort of stuff, so bear with me if I sound "simple"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 As I told I used -24 on 10.1 and found zero problems. I used -24 on it for quite some months, so it's quite tested. (please see my edited post on "no problems" /laughs/) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted May 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Cool, I'll go with that for the time being. Did you happen to use 2.6.11 on MDK 10.1? Or did you only install that on 10.2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 No, I didn't use it on 10.1 Had no problems with .11 on 10.2 apart from VMware (3rd party soft) not liking the.11 source), but that's more a VMware problem, not that of a kernel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted May 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 (edited) OK, I'll not load .11 for now then. I'll see if I can do a bit of googling to see if I can find out more in terms of what kernels can be applied to 10.1. Unless it's posted here first!!!!! :P Many thanks for your help on all this! Oh, and can I remove the old 1-12 kernel after the install of 1-24? Edited May 5, 2005 by ianw1974 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 n/p p.s. Do you have some issues with 2.6.8- kernel that you dislike it? I mean, it's perfectly fine to keep on using it on 10.1 It's tested and stable. p.p.s. Watch out for 2.6.12 kernel. Some major changes/improvements will be included in that version. Many people think that it should really be a 2.7 not 2.6.11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Yes, you can remove it if you wish, but because it's only some 20mb, I suggest you keep it (in case if something unexpected happens, but that's very unlikely) Delete the -12 source though. Just make -24 as the default boot in LILO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted May 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 OK, thanks for that. The only reason I am upgrading it is because the kernel-source is showing as needing a security update in update-source, so I thought that if I upgrade the kernel-source, I should also upgrade the kernel at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 (edited) Yes, you need the kernel and the source to be of identical versions. Edited May 5, 2005 by solarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted May 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 I thought that might be the case. As the security update was flagged, I thought it prudent to upgrade the kernel so that I don't have to worry about anything! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Well, the older source can stay domant on your hard drive, but it only takes up valuable space (~180mb?). What I ment was that (I want to avoid unneeded corrections from fellow forumers) you need identical versions of the kernel and source if you make something from the source for the said kernel, but it doesn't harm if multiple kernel sources are present on a hd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted May 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 OK, cool, I thought that would be the case, because I know some things rely on this when you compile them. I'll have a go at this first thing in the morning and keep you posted..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamw Posted May 5, 2005 Report Share Posted May 5, 2005 Yes, you should install the matching kernel manually. MandrakeUpdate currently doesn't install the new kernel module automatically, for a combination of reasons (technically speaking it would need to be modified to do this, and we also decided that it's such a disruptive change it should be done manually). There are periodic discussions about 'syncing' kernel and kernel-source so MandrakeUpdate and urpmi --auto-select either install both or install neither, but nothing's been done about it yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.