Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
> Was there a problem with the kernel
> .6.32-44.2.el5.vs2.3.0.36.29.4.1.i686 from Daniel's CentOS repo?
.1 didn't generate the initrd correctly, but that was fixed in .2.
> I installed it quite awhile ago but did not get to the colo until a
> couple of weeks ago.
>
> When I went to reboot the system to use the new kernel I kept getting
> errors about the image file not being found/broken and the boot
> partition not valid/unmountable. Yada, yada, yada. I can't remember
> the actual error and haven't had a chance to get back to it. (I wanted
> to do some more research before asking for a clue stick.)
>
> So while working on my presentation for Linuxfest Northwest I noticed
> notice a newer kernel -- 2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.vs2.3.0.36.29.6.10.i686;
> installed it on my system at home and it booted just fine.
But since these are released and in better shape generally, I don't
see why you wouldn't go for them.
> But before I plan another trip to the colo (35 miles) to update all the
> machines there I hoping for some reassurance that that it was just a bad
> day for me and kernels. :-)
-- Daniel Hokka Zakrisson -- Daniel Hokka ZakrissonReceived on Wed Mar 23 08:26:45 2011