On 2011-06-22 13:21 +0200, Camaleón wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:06:33 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > > (...) > >>> But just out of curiosity, what's the raw logic behind the routine that >>> decided to install a PAE kernel instead another one? Why the installer >>> took such option? :-? >> >> It didn't. > > Well, it did.
Sorry, I thought you meant the Debian installer which originally installed your system. > The following NEW packages will be installed: > linux-image-2.6.39-2-686-pae (2.6.39-2) > linux-image-686-pae (2.6.39+35.1) > (...) > The following packages will be upgraded: > (...) > linux-image-686 (2.6.38+34 => 2.6.39+35.1) > > It decided to install the PAE kernel instead the 486 (non-PAE). Why? As I > hadn't installed a "linux-image-2.6-686-pae" previously I'd expected a > non-PAE update, and given that "-686" was not available, "-486" seemed > the most suitable selection. > >> The old -686 kernels from squeeze and earlier do not support >> or need PAE. > > Yes, and that's why I wonder why the update routine decided to go the PAE > way :-) Would you prefer that the linux-image-686 metapackage - depends on the -486 kernel, losing SMP support for the vast amount of machines that have PAE support and multiple cores? - is dropped entirely, leaving you with an old kernel and no way to automatically install a newer one until you manually choose one of the linux-image-486 or linux-image-686-pae packages? Neither of these options seems to be very good. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ei2m3u2a....@turtle.gmx.de
