Kernel Version in Update?

Am I going potty?
But As I recall. During a release all the kernel updates were held in ‘Updates’ repo. So let’s say we have had 5 kernel updates. They would all be available in Updates, meaning you can roll back to the previous.
I’m fairly certain of this because I was doing it in 11.1 for some time.

But I don’t this now. Just current and release.

Thoughts / Comments welcome:)

That’d be new to me…

OK Thanks .

Absolutely not new to me. I’ve done this in the past too. But I’ve also seen it’s no longer like that:
Compare Index of /update/11.1/rpm/x86_64 to Index of /update/11.2/rpm/x86_64 and you will see too.

I’ve always considered it a good thing, these days I keep a set of rpms for the current kernel and some additional things like preload-kmp and wacom-kmp, in case an upgrade breaks things.

Knurpht wrote:
> these days I keep a set of rpms
> for the current kernel and some additional things like preload-kmp and
> wacom-kmp, in case an upgrade breaks things.

imHo (considering the turmoil seen in the last year caused by kernel
updates and breaks) it certainly should be easy yast/zpper roll back
to a working kernel…

should be VERY easy…even for those not archiving their own way back…


DenverD (Linux Counter 282315)
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
via NNTP w/TBird 2.0.0.23 | KDE 3.5.7 | openSUSE 10.3
2.6.22.19-0.4-default SMP i686
AMD Athlon 1 GB RAM | GeForce FX 5500 | ASRock K8Upgrade-760GX |
CMedia 9761 AC’97 Audio

I noticed this recently as well, when I discovered a problem with the 2.6.31.12 kernel breaking the wireless on my laptop. But instead of rolling back to the 2.6.31.9 (?) I was forced to roll back to the 2.6.31.5, because I could no longer find the 2.6.3.9 (at least not easily - it may have been kicking around somewhere).

So may be I’m not potty…

what is the ‘correct’ way to raise this issue with the repo
maintainers? bugzilla, fate, what??


DenverD (Linux Counter 282315)
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
via NNTP w/TBird 2.0.0.23 | KDE 3.5.7 | openSUSE 10.3
2.6.22.19-0.4-default SMP i686
AMD Athlon 1 GB RAM | GeForce FX 5500 | ASRock K8Upgrade-760GX |
CMedia 9761 AC’97 Audio

I think both are good and will be seen from the developers and packagers. But maybe openFATE is more appropriate because it is targeted towards features and Bugzilla is for bugs.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:11:16 GMT
Siminin <> wrote:

>
> DenverD;2183540 Wrote:
> > what is the ‘correct’ way to raise this issue with the repo
> > maintainers? bugzilla, fate, what??
> I think both are good and will be seen from the developers and
> packagers. But maybe openFATE is more appropriate because it is
> targeted towards features and Bugzilla is for bugs.

To me it looks a bug (I can’t verify it at the moment, I’m offline).
Thus the place should be Bugzilla.

Plus, openFATE is often not seen by the people that are affected by the
report/request, they don’t get informed automatically - I’ve seen that
complain somewhere.

I feel that a “fate” is a request to add a new feature, but this is
something that we had and has disappeared.


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” GM (Minas Tirith))

I re- activated this because things changed
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10573557/Switcher%20Pics/kernel-versions.png

See also this thread
Retaining previous kernel boot option?