Guest LinuxExplorer Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 I kinda stumbled across this: Link And installed it because I haven't been able to get supermount to work correctly. Its 2.4.19-24 instead of 2.4.19-16 and supermount seems to work now. Haven't had enough time for extensive testing, but then again at least my machine didn't blow up. :D Again, this is just for 9.0 for those who are like me that aren't brave enough to try out the beta version of 9.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 Excellent, I was thinking about buying a flat of beer and compiling my own, but if this comes out soon enoug I think I"ll pass and do it the easy way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ndeb Posted February 5, 2003 Report Share Posted February 5, 2003 http://www.mandrakesecure.net/en/advisorie...=MDKSA-2003:014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramsret Posted February 6, 2003 Report Share Posted February 6, 2003 Thanks for the info and link. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't noobs especially have to beware of updating the kernel, particularly using Mandrake update, as it will render your system unbootable without some rescue disk action? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted February 6, 2003 Report Share Posted February 6, 2003 read the post from DragonMage http://www.mandrakeusers.org/viewtopic.php?t=2887 See installation>kernel Upgrade http://www.mandrakeusers.org/docs/top.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sglafata Posted February 6, 2003 Report Share Posted February 6, 2003 Thanks for the info and link. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't noobs especially have to beware of updating the kernel, particularly using Mandrake update, as it will render your system unbootable without some rescue disk action? That's funny :? When I installed the kernel the "recommended" way (rpm -ivh kernel-2.4.19.24mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm), it crapped out my whole system and now I can't even boot into any kernel. But from what I have been reading, the Mandrake Update or urpmi method seems to work for most people. I'll have to try that after re-installing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMage Posted February 7, 2003 Report Share Posted February 7, 2003 Hmm.. it's strange since as far as I know, nobody can install/upgrade new kernel via urpmi or mandrakeupdate since it will hose their computer. The new kernel is not even listed in the rpmdrake, only kernel-sources. Anyway, care to tell me what you did before hosing that computer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted February 7, 2003 Report Share Posted February 7, 2003 When I install a kernel, I always make sure the symlinks are correct in /boot and that I have options for booting the old kernel if the new one does not work. Isn't that the correct way to do it? Note: I almost always have to have mymachine compiled Nvidia drivers in order to get X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted February 7, 2003 Report Share Posted February 7, 2003 make sure the symlinks are correct in /boot and that I have options for booting the old kernel if the new one does not work. Isn't that the correct way to do it?Yes, the sys isn't hosed at all...it just needs a little prep, and in some cases repair (upgrade). If the prep isn't done, you could always boot CD1, mount all partitions, chroot /mnt, and make repaires to the bootloaders config. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ndeb Posted February 7, 2003 Report Share Posted February 7, 2003 I have noticed that rpm -Uvh kernel_new actually behaves as rpm -ivh kernel_new so that both the kernels coexist. I installed the new kernel and then deleted the older kernel by rpm -e kernel_old , ran lilo and rebooted. The system came up fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sglafata Posted February 7, 2003 Report Share Posted February 7, 2003 Well, after re-installing, I followed the exact same steps that I took before to update the kernel (rpm -ivh kernel*.rpm) and it installed flawlessly and without a hiccup. Hmmf?! Go figure. Oh well, I sure hope that LM9.1 is more stable than 9.0. I really don't like this version. I never had any problems with LM8.2. I've also noticed that everytime I re-install 9.0 (yes, I have had to re-install multiple times), it appears to change the configuration somewhat. The same programs are not always re-installed. I don't understand. That's probably another topic though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramfree17 Posted February 7, 2003 Report Share Posted February 7, 2003 sorry but i didnt read the thread thoroughly but skipped here and there. from what i can remember, the rpmdrake (which is the frontend for urpmi so i believe what i will below can apply to urpmi itself) that came with 9.0 has a safety net that when a user tries to upgrade the kernel it will install it instead. This was brought to a lot of newbie complaints before that the rpmdrake from pre-9.0 releases were happily upgrading the system whenever the user clicks on the install/upgrade button and thus hoses their system down. thus, to make rpmdrake more newbie-friendly it was splitted and dumbed down*. ciao! *I am not arguing this point. Whether this is true or not is still up for debate and can only be summarized in 4 letters*: YMMV. 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.