>>>>> "BH" == Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> writes: BH> I wonder why you had both linux-image-686 and linux-image-2.6-686 BH> installed. They are redundant with each other. Well, can you please mention that in aptitude show linux-image-2.6-486 linux-image-486 else sooner or later over the years one will end up with both installed. Also why not make them conflict. Apparently one will poop out when linux 2.8 comes out, one wont. Anyway, you need to mention something in their Descriptions. Else sooner or later one will install both because nobody knows what the master plan is because it is not in the Descriptions.
BH> You don't *need* to remove the other packages to continue, but then they BH> have no use. So I agree the message could be improved. Very much should remove unless ones traditional tiny root partition is just to collect bulky junk. >> Removing symbolic link initrd.img.old >> You may need to re-run your boot loader BH> These warnings are about compatibility with LILO and other dumb boot BH> loaders. I would love to get rid of the warnings, but so long as they BH> rely on these symlinks by default we can't reasonably do so. It would be nice if the was a message 'OK, fixed', because indeed it does then fix them, it just doesn't mention it. So we go looking, all worried, only to find that it already just fixed it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8739k7frih....@jidanni.org
