Debian Kernels (Solved)

[viking777]

My LMDE has the following kernel in use:

Code: Select all

uname -a
Linux acer 2.6.38-2-686 #1 SMP Sun May 8 14:49:45 UTC 2011 i686 GNU/Linux

Note that it is a straightforward -686 kernel.

I notice from discussions in the 'breakages' forum that most people are now using the 2.6.39-2 kernel version. This has not been offered as an upgrade to me and it has set me to wondering if Debian have suddenly changed the types of kernel that they intend to offer? For example if I search for the 39.2 kernel on packages.debian.org using the wheezy suite, the only relevant ones are:

linux-image-2.6.39-2-486

linux-image-2.6.39-2-686-pae

linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64

If I move ahead to sid I get the same results.

Now my processor is not a -486, (although I am sure that will run), I only have 2Gb of memory so I do not need pae (and I tried one once and it wouldn't boot), and although I have a 64 bit processor I have no intention of running 64 bit OS's as they are always less stable than 32 bit versions - don't argue they are

Normally it wouldn't bother me I would be quite happy to wait, but as the situation is the same on Sid this tends to suggest to me that the straightforward -686 kernel is no longer considered worthy of development by Debian and/or Linus T.

Is this correct or will it just emerge later?

[zerozero]

what surprises me is how you still didn't get the upgrade to the 39.2 kernel; been holding the latests updates?
anyway, about the 686 vs pae kernel affair http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/upco ... -i386.html

[mockturtl]

My LMDE has the following kernel in use:

Code: Select all

uname -a
Linux acer 2.6.38-2-686 #1 SMP Sun May 8 14:49:45 UTC 2011 i686 GNU/Linux

Note that it is a straightforward -686 kernel.

I notice from discussions in the 'breakages' forum that most people are now using the 2.6.39-2 kernel version. This has not been offered as an upgrade to me and it has set me to wondering if Debian have suddenly changed the types of kernel that they intend to offer? For example if I search for the 39.2 kernel on packages.debian.org using the wheezy suite

http://packages.debian.org/testing/kernel/

My C2D:

$ uname -a
Linux hostname 2.6.39-2-686-pae #1 SMP Wed Jun 8 11:33:14 UTC 2011 i686 GNU/Linux

[sumski]

if you have 1 processor choose -486, if you have 2 or more choose -686-pae. Btw. I'm running a 32-bit install with amd64 without any problems, but i wouldn't advise you the same if your using proprietary drivers - at least for me modules for 64bit kernel don't build

[viking777]

what surprises me is how you still didn't get the upgrade to the 39.2 kernel; been holding the latests updates?
anyway, about the 686 vs pae kernel affair http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/upco ... -i386.html

Very good find zz - impressed!

I haven't been holding any packages (except the mesa one that removes the Nvidia packages), I was offered the pae kernel, I installed it and it didn't boot. I therefore uninstalled it on the grounds that I don't need pae. But it looks from that link you found as if I do need it after all

(What is surprising I guess is that having removed it, I was never prompted to upgrade it a second time).

I agree wholeheartedly with Ben (whoever he might be) when he says that the removal of 686 is

surprising, because it's the most widely used flavour of the 4 (kernel varieties) we have a present:

I guess I better have another look at a pae kernel then.

Thanks once again for your help - and indeed all the other respondents. I will mark this one solved.

EDIT. It boots this time. I still consider it kind of funny that Debian, famed for its obscure processor architecture support has withdrawn direct support for the most populous architecture on the planet . Still I guess nothing should surprise me any more, Ubuntu and Gnome both think that everyone has hardware video acceleration these days and they are 100% wrong about that. Not only that but the Linux Standards Group considers that rpm is a superior package management system to debian - they can only be taking drugs

[zerozero]

we're seeing some "interesting" things indeed in LinuxLand

[craigevil]

The whole pae thing pissed me off as well. I run Debian sid on an old IBM Thinkpad, the processor is too old to use pae, so I had to manually switch to the -486 kernel.

$ uname -a
Linux debian 2.6.39-2-486 #1 Tue Jul 5 02:52:23 UTC 2011 i686 GNU/Linux

Dropping a pure -686 kernel was just plain silly. Courtesy of more Ubuntu crap creeping into Debian.

[clem]

It might be a tad early to say... but it looks like LMDE 32-bit is going towards using a 486 kernel by default.

[secipolla]

Well, I have an old single-core Athlon XP and by means of simply upgrading the kernel I have for some time now

Code: Select all

$ uname -a
Linux debian 3.0.0-1-686-pae #1 SMP Sun Jul 24 14:27:32 UTC 2011 i686 GNU/Linux

I read somewhere that the pae kernel is slower but for me it works as usual.
(I know there's the issue that some old processors don't have the capability to run the pae kernel)

EDIT (because the forum doesn't allow a new post before 24h, probably): and really, anyone that wants a non-pae i686 kernel can install the liquorix ones.

[kabbalah]

Hello, please tell me how secipolla made the upgrading to kernel 3.0.
Thank

kabbalah

[secipolla]

Hello, please tell me how secipolla made the upgrading to kernel 3.0.
Thank

kabbalah

I use the Debian 'unstable' repositories. But I think kernel 3.0 will come to Debian 'testing' soon because it's been on 'unstable' for two weeks already.

[ghostdawg]

I see updates are now offering to install kernel 3.0, is it running okay for those that have it? Any known issues so far? I'm waiting a bit before updating.

Thnx.

[viking777]

I see updates are now offering to install kernel 3.0, is it running okay for those that have it? Any known issues so far? I'm waiting a bit before updating.

Thnx.

It's broken. But just in case you didn't know, kernel upgrades don't overwrite anything, they just add themselves to the list of available kernels to boot from, so you can upgrade if you want and just use the old kernel. Of course quite what the point is of having a kernel that doesn't work on your system I am not sure, so you could equally well just leave it until it fixes itself.

[ghostdawg]

Thanks, Viking777, I'm glad to know it have issues.

[secipolla]

Dear ghostdawg, the kernel 3.0 runs pretty fine here (plain old desktop). As any kernel it may work better with some setups than with others.
Regarding kernels, the are two things to consider. If the one one's using works then there may be no need to upgrade (but to not receive the upgrades automatically one has to uninstall the kernel metapackage, i.e. e.g. uninstall linux-image-2.6-i686-pae and keep only the specific version, e.g. linux-image-2.6.39-2-686-pae).
On the other hand, a newer kernel supports better hardware and may have some sensible improvements (also regressions) so you can simply upgrade it and see if it works well. If it does and you're satisfied, you can uninstall the older kernel.

[ghostdawg]

Ok, I went ahead with the update along with kernel 3.0.0.1, so far all is going good. I'll keep everyone informed if any issues come up.

Thnx.