On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:54:37 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > 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.
Although I said "the installer" I really was referring to the updater, sorry for messing the terms. >>> 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. No indeed, but I would add a third option: - is smart enough to ask the user what he wants to install/keep/upgrade. Something like this prompt: "Hey, there is a new kernel package available for you, and I see you are running a kernel with "x" characteristics, so would you like to... a) upgrade to the -486 kernel that keeps the same compilation options than the kernel you are running, b) jump to a PAE-SMP kernel or c) Keep the current one and do not update, I'll decide later?" So if the user is running a non-smp/non-pae kernel, let him to decide the path to go. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- 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/pan.2011.06.22.13.49...@gmail.com
