Frank Lenaerts wrote: > Tested some of the linux images: > > - 2.6.39 seems ok > - 3.0.0-1 seems ok > - 3.1.0-1 seems ok > - 3.2.0-1 does not seem to be ok: > - first boot: system hung at "Loading, please wait..."; note that > the LED indicating disk activity was not burning > - second boot: ok > - third boot: ok > > Had it running and used it for a few days. Then decided to give > 3.2.0-3 a try again. > > - 3.2.0-3 is not ok:
Thanks much for this. [...] > - first boot: crash during the boot process i.e. detected the > external USB disk (which I had connected again while working with > 3.2.0-1), makefile style concurrent boot, hotplug, udev... > stacktrace (not sure if it was after or before the hotplug stuff; > unfortunately didn't have logging turned on and keyboard was > stuck)... For the future, photographs work fine if you can catch the machine at the right moment. [...] > Question: 3.2.0-3 was the one installed during the installation. > 3.2.0-1 was installed by me for testing purposes and came from > 3.2.1-1. I see that the snapshot directory contains other 3.2.0-1 > e.g. under 3.2.2-1. Why is it like that? Package names like linux-image-3.2.0-1-486 describe the kernel's ABI, not the package version. The package version is something like 3.2.1-1. See <http://kernel-handbook.alioth.debian.org/ch-versions.html> for more details. You can get the version of the currently running kernel by running "cat /proc/version" (it will be in parentheses). The currently installed kernel's version number can be retrieved with "dpkg-query -W linux-image-$(uname -r)". Which versions were the 3.2.0-1, 3.2.0-2, and 3.2.0-3 kernels you mentioned testing above? Hope that helps, Jonathan -- 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/20121025203420.GF30334@elie.Belkin
