- This topic has 32 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated May 7-8:08 am by Brian Masinick.
-
Posts
-
stevesr0
Hi anti-apXos,
I noticed that apt upgrade doesn’t list kernels that are newly added to the listings in aptitude or (I suspect,) synaptic.
Isn’t this because they are each new installs, rather than upgrades of previous versions?
- This reply was modified 4 months, 3 weeks ago by stevesr0.
anti-apXos
Yes, antix kernels come as an entirely new package for each version, which is why the version number is in the package name itself, e.g. linux-image-6.6.137-antix.1-amd64-smp.
You’ll notice that for most other packages, the version number is separate from the package name, so once you have say “firefox-esr” or “icewm-common” installed, updates can come to those package by just replacing the version of it in the repository.
I guess the same could be done for the kernel, though I think what’s more common is to use a metapackage that has a generic name, which is just a dummy package with a dependency on whatever the most recent actual kernel package is. This way multiple kernel versions can still be kept available in the repository, which is desirable, but users can also optionally install the metapackage if they want automatic kernel updates.
As pointed out in the other thread, if antix users want that kind of automatic kernel updating, they can install the Debian kernel metapackages, linux-image-amd64 and linux-headers-amd64.
"--"
Brian Masinick
Incidentally, is there a technical reason for not installing automatically, or is it a “user responsibility” thing?
It’s a choice; antiX does not include any metapackages that automatically install anything. However, if you look at our tools, the
Package Installer / Software Installer has a Kernels category. On my system I see the availability of different kernels including Kernel-antiX_64bit_LTS_6.6, which contains the antiX Kernel 6.6.137.So with antiX, such things, while not “automatic”, are provided in a convenient interface; you don’t even have to understand dpkg, apt, apt-get or apt-cache search. Of course all of those are available too, but so are other conveniences, despite the lean overall size and resources used.
--
Brian Masinick
Alternate "Search B":
This search pagem4r35n357
OK thanks, in other distros if there is a kernel update I at least consider doing a backup first 😉
Probably ready to try a live USB kernel update now – on a copy, of course!
Robin
if there is a kernel update I at least consider doing a backup first
While this is always recommended after changing anything in your system (so you have always a recent backup of the former system state when going to be applying the next change), there is no reason to do this in particular before kernel upgrades: The new kernel is installed additionally to the former one, and you can always return to the last working one, if your system won’t run or come up on the new one. Simply select from the grub boot menu the old kernel for this. And even in Live/frugal installs there is always the rollback option. So upgrading the kernel is no higher risk than installing any piece of software or updating other components of the system.
Nevertheless, starting with a backup is always good, so I won’t keep you from doing it. I just didn’t mention that explicitly, since I considered constant backups as a matter of course.
Windows is like a submarine. Open a window and serious problems will start.
What I meant was that I am careful on other OSs rather than antiX when I see an update, but even then I don’t always back up first. I was making the point that the antiX approach actively encourages prior consideration; a good thing IMO.
However, the cause behind this particular update means a backup afterwards is probably more useful to me 😉
El Tangas
That probably means the PT repos are no longer reliable
In that case these repos should be removed from the Repo Manager, I’m also from PT, and if we run apt and blindly accept proposed changes using those repos, we will probably break our systems eventually.
anticapitalista
That probably means the PT repos are no longer reliable
In that case these repos should be removed from the Repo Manager, I’m also from PT, and if we run apt and blindly accept proposed changes using those repos, we will probably break our systems eventually.
So user has no responsibility at all????
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
So user has no responsibility at all????
Yes, I’m exercising my responsibility by bringing this issue to the devs attention.
anticapitalista
So user has no responsibility at all????
Yes, I’m exercising my responsibility by bringing this issue to the devs attention.
Noted.
Provide me a list of all unreliable repos and they can be removed.Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
Provide me a list of all unreliable repos and they can be removed.
What method do you recommend for checking a repo for reliability?
anticapitalista
Provide me a list of all unreliable repos and they can be removed.
What method do you recommend for checking a repo for reliability?
Good question. I don’t have an answer.
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
Good question. I don’t have an answer.
I see. Well, when you said the PT repos were not in https://antixlinux.com/mirmon-packages/ because they were probably unreliable, I assumed there was a method to determine reliability, and they failed to pass and were removed there. My bad.
- This reply was modified 4 months, 3 weeks ago by El Tangas.
anticapitalista
They all start off as reliable, but sometimes (we don’t know why or when) they become unreliable, then reliable again.
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
They all start off as reliable, but sometimes (we don’t know why or when) they become unreliable, then reliable again.
Lol. Always learning I guess. I never imagined repo mirrors were so volatile 😛
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.