2.6.29 needs new netcfg

dhave · 2009-03-26 17:03:47

When I moved up from kernel 2.6.28 to 2.6.29, netcfg stopped working for me. After I updated to netcfg-2.1.3-2 (also in [testing]), it started working again.

skottish · 2009-03-26 18:19:10

Well, testing is designed to be used completely. I'd be surprised if it's the only thing that broke if you didn't do a -Suy.

dhave · 2009-03-26 18:41:56

skottish wrote:

Well, testing is designed to be used completely. I'd be surprised if it's the only thing that broke if you didn't do a -Suy.

I didn't realize that testing is designed to be used completely. (It's probably somewhere in the docs, but ... well, no excuse).

Pretty much the only thing I like to pull from testing is the latest kernel, though I've been doing that only the past couple of months. I realize that there's always the possiblity of collateral damage, but I figured I'd risk it. With what you say, I'm wondering if that's a good idea. Since kernels usually make it from testing to core in just a couple of days, rather than going whole-hog into testing, I think I'll just start being a little more patient and wait for kernels to hit core.

Thanks for the info. It was helpful.

skottish · 2009-03-26 18:48:20

Enabling testing is fun anyway. For instance, I have no idea whether my four ext4 partitions were just hosed by the new kernel. Really, I'm clueless. After the filesystem checks that followed the "primary superblock features different from backup" errors, things seem to be alright. Of course I haven't restarted my computer again, so who knows? If that's not fun, I don't know what is.

dhave · 2009-03-26 19:18:20

skottish wrote:

Enabling testing is fun anyway. For instance, I have no idea whether my four ext4 partitions were just hosed by the new kernel. Really, I'm clueless. After the filesystem checks that followed the "primary superblock features different from backup" errors, things seem to be alright. Of course I haven't restarted my computer again, so who knows? If that's not fun, I don't know what is.

I also am running two ext4 partitions, and I got that same menacing message about "primary superblock features" immediately after updating to 2.6.29-1. I held my breath during an automatic fsck and a reboot, and then everything seemed to be normal. It still seems to be after 24 hours, at least as far as I can tell.

Then, an hour or so ago, I updated to 2.6.29-2, and I got the same scary message. Again, after an automatic fsck and reboot, everything seems O.K., so far.

Are we gonna get this message after very kernel update from now on?

Yes, this is fun.

I'm wondering if "testing" refers to testing the user's patience and courage rather than testing the software.

steve-e · 2009-03-26 23:53:49

I had the same check for ext3.

skottish · 2009-03-26 23:56:58

I had yet another kernel upgrade and restart since I posted last in this thread and I haven't seen any more messages. As far as I know there aren't any problems either. Hopefully it's as harmless as it seems.

moljac024 · 2009-03-26 23:57:32

Running ext4 is just inviting that sort of fun to happen to you

skottish · 2009-03-26 23:59:29

moljac024 wrote:

Running ext4 is just inviting that sort of fun to happen to you

Don't be cynical. As long as you don't turn on your computer, ext4 is da' bomb!

Army · 2009-03-27 08:59:36

skottish wrote:

As long as you don't turn on your computer, ext4 is da' bomb!

In that case I would prefer btrfs

Dieter@be · 2009-03-27 09:31:20

skottish wrote:

Enabling testing is fun anyway. For instance, I have no idea whether my four ext4 partitions were just hosed by the new kernel. Really, I'm clueless. After the filesystem checks that followed the "primary superblock features different from backup" errors, things seem to be alright. Of course I haven't restarted my computer again, so who knows? If that's not fun, I don't know what is.

You should try Gentoo. All kinds of "fun" guaranteed

Arch Linux

#1 2009-03-26 17:03:47

2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#2 2009-03-26 18:19:10

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#3 2009-03-26 18:41:56

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#4 2009-03-26 18:48:20

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#5 2009-03-26 19:18:20

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#6 2009-03-26 23:53:49

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#7 2009-03-26 23:56:58

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#8 2009-03-26 23:57:32

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#9 2009-03-26 23:59:29

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#10 2009-03-27 08:59:36

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

#11 2009-03-27 09:31:20

Re: 2.6.29 needs new netcfg

Board footer