On Tuesday, 2 April 2024 10:14:11 CEST Michael wrote: > On Tuesday, 2 April 2024 07:03:42 BST J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On Monday, 1 April 2024 23:46:49 CEST John Covici wrote: > > > Hi. Well, I followed the steps in the news item, to move > > > todefault/linux/amd64/23.0/desktop/gnome/systemd > > > > > > and it all worked till it wants me to emerge the whole world file. > > > Here is what I get: > > > > > > emerge --ask --emptytree @world > > > > > > These are the packages that would be merged, in order: > > > > > > Calculating dependencies .... done! > > > Dependency resolution took 4.58 s (backtrack: 0/200). > > > > > > > > > !!! Problems have been detected with your world file > > > !!! Please run emaint --check world > > > > > > > > > !!! Ebuilds for the following packages are either all > > > !!! masked or don't exist: > > > www-apps/nextcloud:26.0.10 > > > > > > emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy > > > "sys-kernel/gentoo-sources:6.1.69". > > > (dependency required by "@kernels" [set]) > > > (dependency required by "@selected" [set]) > > > (dependency required by "@world" [argument]) > > > > > > I don't want to unmerge that kernel -- its my backup kernel, so I > > > definitely want to keep it. I am using the nextcloud they are > > > complaining about , I will upgrade it soon, but I want to keep it for > > > now. > > > > Do you actually need to keep the kernel-sources? > > Once the kernel is compiled and you moved the image to /boot/..., you > > don't > > need to keep the sources. > > > > I also keep an older kernel just in case, but I don't tend to actually > > keep > > the sources around once I have confirmed the new kernel will boot. > > > > -- > > Joost > > When gentoo-sources are tree-cleaned, it is typically because they have been > superseded by later kernel patches to improve security and resolve bugs. > Therefore it is usually a 'good idea' to emerge a later kernel when this > happens, even if we're talking about a backup kernel. > > Last week I came upon a similar problem on an old system I was trying to > migrate to profile 23.0, only this happened not with my backup but with the > running kernel. This PC had not been updated for 5-6 months. It's resource > constrained and I didn't want to spend many days updating most of its > deprecated packages, only to have to re-emerge them as part of the profile > migration. I can't recall if it was the same kernel as John's. During the > migration I came across some package (llvm?) which required a more up to > date kernel to be able to emerge. This forced me to upgrade the kernel > first, before I could continue with the migration. I'm mentioning this > since the utility of a backup kernel would be limited when you can't use it > to run your software.
This is my experience as well. A "backup kernel" is, in my opinion, only useful as a fall-back in case the system won't boot with a new kernel. But, once it booted with the new kernel correctly, there is no reason to actually keep the old kernel. -- Joost
