On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 05:44 +0100, Dom wrote:
> On 21/06/11 18:52, Camaleón wrote:
[...]
>
> Now here's the thing. I did the install, got the warning from the
> meta-package (linux-image-2.6-686), and the kernel installed - as you said.
>
> I then rebooted and... it works fine.
>
Not quite... i
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:51:49 +0100, Dom wrote:
> On 22/06/11 12:21, Camaleón wrote:
>> 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, "-
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 instea
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:16:10 +0100, Dom wrote:
> On 22/06/11 12:10, Camaleón wrote:
>> Now seriously, how can be that?
>>
>> I know there were a set of Pentium M processors models that had enabled
>> PAE/NX but if that's the case, cpuinfo should expose both flags ("pae"
>> and "nx"), which is not
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? :-?
>>
>> I
On 22/06/11 12:21, 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.
Th
On 22/06/11 12:10, Camaleón wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:16:02 +0200, Alberto Luaces wrote:
Dom writes:
Now here's the thing. I did the install, got the warning from the
meta-package (linux-image-2.6-686), and the kernel installed - as you
said.
I then rebooted and... it works fine.
It ha
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:21:48 +0200, Alberto Luaces wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:16:02 +0200, Alberto Luaces wrote:
>>
>>> Dom writes:
>>>
Now here's the thing. I did the install, got the warning from the
meta-package (linux-image-2.6-686), and the kernel instal
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.
The following NEW packages
Camaleón writes:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:16:02 +0200, Alberto Luaces wrote:
>
>> Dom writes:
>>
>>> Now here's the thing. I did the install, got the warning from the
>>> meta-package (linux-image-2.6-686), and the kernel installed - as you
>>> said.
>>>
>>> I then rebooted and... it works fine.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:16:02 +0200, Alberto Luaces wrote:
> Dom writes:
>
>> Now here's the thing. I did the install, got the warning from the
>> meta-package (linux-image-2.6-686), and the kernel installed - as you
>> said.
>>
>> I then rebooted and... it works fine.
>
> It happened to me too!
Dom writes:
> Now here's the thing. I did the install, got the warning from the
> meta-package (linux-image-2.6-686), and the kernel installed - as you
> said.
>
> I then rebooted and... it works fine.
It happened to me too!
--
Alberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.de
On 21/06/11 18:52, Camaleón wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:22:48 +0100, Dom wrote:
I'll find that out what apt does tomorrow when I try to upgrade my main
laptop which doesn't have pae support, and will report the results.
I'll give you some tips as I couldn't retain my self and performed the
On 2011-06-21 20:37 +0200, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:13:06 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> On 2011-06-21 19:52 +0200, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>>> Well, if you agree with the update, the pae kernel installs despite it
>>> warns about it will not work (and when you boot with it, it fails
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:05:04 -0400, Gilbert Sullivan wrote:
> On 06/21/2011 01:52 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> So in the end you need to manually remove the pae kernel and install
>> the 486, as Gilbert suggested.
>>
>> I still think this should have been automagically done by the upgrade.
>> Why proce
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:13:06 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-06-21 19:52 +0200, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Well, if you agree with the update, the pae kernel installs despite it
>> warns about it will not work (and when you boot with it, it fails as
>> expected). You can still boot with the old ke
On 2011-06-21 19:52 +0200, Camaleón wrote:
> Well, if you agree with the update, the pae kernel installs despite it
> warns about it will not work (and when you boot with it, it fails as
> expected). You can still boot with the old kernel (good job!).
>
> So in the end you need to manually remov
On 06/21/2011 01:52 PM, Camaleón wrote:
Well, if you agree with the update, the pae kernel installs despite it
warns about it will not work (and when you boot with it, it fails as
expected). You can still boot with the old kernel (good job!).
So in the end you need to manually remove the pae ker
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:22:48 +0100, Dom wrote:
> On 21/06/11 17:33, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:16:02 -0400, Gilbert Sullivan wrote:
(...)
>>> Aptitude was nice to me.
>>
>> Yep, I also think so. But I wondered how "apt-get dist-upgrade" would
>> handle this sitution. I bet that it
19 matches
Mail list logo
