SEARCH

Enter your search query in the box above ^, or use the forum search tool.

You are not logged in.

#1 2014-09-12 20:21:42

Head_on_a_Stick
CatMod
From: A world of pure imagination
Registered: 2014-01-21
Posts: 4,797

Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

Add the backports repository to your sources.list:

sudo tee -a /etc/apt/sources.list <<< "deb http://http.debian.net/debian wheezy-backports main"

Update the database:

sudo apt-get update

Install the kernel (adjust to suit your achitecture):

sudo apt-get install -t wheezy-backports linux-image-amd64

Profit!
smile

EDIT: changed aptitude to apt-get -- see post #3 (thanks @porkpiehat) & my post #20

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2014-09-20 16:23:11)

Offline

Help fund CrunchBang, donate to the project!

#2 2014-09-12 20:34:08

thecomputerholic
Member
Registered: 2014-07-09
Posts: 16

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

Nice  smile


There is a mistake in this statement.  This is a logical necessity.

#! - arch - debian

Offline

#3 2014-09-12 20:40:47

porkpiehat
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2012-10-02
Posts: 1,007

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

Thank you for posting this. I do have to ask, however, why you mix apt-get and aptitude. I was taught that you should pick one of apt-get or aptitude and not mix the two (so "aptitude update" followed by "aptitude install" or "apt-get update" followed by "apt-get install"). I doubt that it is really a problem in this case, and some will probably argue that this is not true at all, but is there a particular reason why you are recommending this mix? I'm just curious.

Last edited by porkpiehat (2014-09-12 20:48:41)

Offline

#4 2014-09-12 20:56:22

Head_on_a_Stick
CatMod
From: A world of pure imagination
Registered: 2014-01-21
Posts: 4,797

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

@porkpiehat -- apt-get & aptitude have different strengths & I tend to use whichever I feel to be most appropriate.
The best way I have seen the differences described is using a surgical analogy:
If you have to remove a tumour, using aptitude is like using a surgeon; using apt-get is like using a scalpel...
smile
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debi … de_literal
http://www.algebraicthunk.net/~dburrows … index.html

EDIT: I always use apt-get update because it's faster than aptitude update and a database is a database, right?
Otherwise I tend to prefer aptitude because of the enhanced dependency resolution (with the caveat that the output must always be studied carefully just in case it gets too "enthusiastic" & tries to remove everything...).

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2014-09-12 21:20:28)

Offline

#5 2014-09-12 22:08:52

exidux
#! CrunchBanger
From: Your screen.
Registered: 2014-09-05
Posts: 202
Website

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

ctrl + d -> success.
useful short information when needed ; confirmed.

cool  = over 9000

Last edited by exidux (2014-09-12 22:09:05)


~ When jessie hits stable you could upgrade crunchbang and keep it alive a bit longer.

Offline

#6 2014-09-12 22:33:18

Sector11
#!'er to BL'er
From: SR11 Cockpit
Registered: 2010-05-05
Posts: 15,667
Website

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

porkpiehat wrote:

Thank you for posting this. I do have to ask, however, why you mix apt-get and aptitude. I was taught that you should pick one of apt-get or aptitude and not mix the two (so "aptitude update" followed by "aptitude install" or "apt-get update" followed by "apt-get install"). I doubt that it is really a problem in this case, and some will probably argue that this is not true at all, but is there a particular reason why you are recommending this mix? I'm just curious.

Because your info is old.  as seen here: apt-get, aptitude, … pick the right Debian package manager for you
Where is says:

apt-get or aptitude?

First I want to make it clear that you can use both and mix them without problems. It used to be annoying when apt-get did not track which packages were automatically installed while aptitude did, but now that both packages share this list, there’s no reason to avoid switching back and forth.


·  ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓  ·
BunsenLabs Forums now Open for Registration
·  ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑  · BL ModSquad

Offline

#7 2014-09-12 23:02:09

porkpiehat
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2012-10-02
Posts: 1,007

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

Sector11 wrote:

Because your info is old.  as seen here:

Yes, I have seen that post (one person's opinion), and I even mentioned in my question to HoaS that

porkpiehat wrote:

and some will probably argue that this is not true at all,

I simply wondered why HoaS mixed both in his OP, and he answered that. Personally I would still never recommend this (for various reasons), but do not want to argue about it. I thank HoaS for the explanation, and now return you to your original transmission...

Sector11 and HoaS I sent you PMs.

Last edited by porkpiehat (2014-09-12 23:25:49)

Offline

#8 2014-09-12 23:19:08

Alad
Software Satan
Registered: 2014-02-20
Posts: 1,512

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

When I tried sid, I've mixed apt-get and aptitude, and aptitude dist-upgraded a few packages that apt-get held back -  I got a broken system. But sid is broken anyway, so I don't know what to think.  O:)

Last edited by Alad (2014-09-12 23:21:23)

Offline

#9 2014-09-12 23:20:53

porkpiehat
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2012-10-02
Posts: 1,007

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

Alad wrote:

When I tried sid, I've mixed apt-get and aptitude, and aptitude dist-upgraded a few packages that apt-get held back - I got a broken system. But sid is broken anyway, so I don't know what to think.  O:)

^ this. As far as I know, aptitude does not respect holds placed with apt or dpkg (only holds placed with aptitude). Granted, as you mentioned (before your edit), in a stable system this is not usually a problem, and I could also be wrong about this (before anyone else claims that I have "old information"! -- see, I admitted I could be wrong!).

Last edited by porkpiehat (2014-09-12 23:25:03)

Offline

#10 2014-09-12 23:29:48

Head_on_a_Stick
CatMod
From: A world of pure imagination
Registered: 2014-01-21
Posts: 4,797

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

@porkpiehat -- there are several package state modifiers for aptitude; AFAIK these and the apt-cache & dpkg commands all operate on the same APT back-end...
http://algebraicthunk.net/~dburrows/pro … 02s03.html

Offline

#11 2014-09-12 23:41:00

Alad
Software Satan
Registered: 2014-02-20
Posts: 1,512

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

Which brings us back to "it's all too damn complicated"

Offline

#12 2014-09-12 23:48:31

Head_on_a_Stick
CatMod
From: A world of pure imagination
Registered: 2014-01-21
Posts: 4,797

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

^ I prefer to think of it as "character" big_smile

Offline

#13 2014-09-13 01:31:35

lowrider
#! Die Hard
From: Germany
Registered: 2011-09-10
Posts: 749

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

apt-get or aptitude? choose one and live with it  big_smile
i prefere apt-get on stable and sid


came for the distro, stayed for the community
streamripper :: smxi

Offline

#14 2014-09-13 05:05:13

pvsage
Internal Affairs
From: North Carolina
Registered: 2009-10-18
Posts: 13,970

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

In the example Head_on_a_Stick posted at the beginning of the thread, both commands should do exactly the same whether you use apt-get or aptitude since the first one just updates your local APT database and the latter installs the metapackage for the backported kernel and its dependencies.  Primary differences between apt-get and aptitude are in conflict resolution, and there shouldn't be any conflicts to resolve in this case. O:)

Offline

#15 2014-09-13 11:50:37

Head_on_a_Stick
CatMod
From: A world of pure imagination
Registered: 2014-01-21
Posts: 4,797

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

^I totally agree, using either is fine AFAIK smile

Offline

#16 2014-09-13 12:07:53

Sector11
#!'er to BL'er
From: SR11 Cockpit
Registered: 2010-05-05
Posts: 15,667
Website

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

First to porkpiehat - if I sounded harsh or rude, it was not my intention.  I apologize.

Looking at the first link HoaS gave, I missed the NOTE yesterday and probably would have answered differently had I paid attention to the it.  It's just under the heading.

The package dependency resolver of the aptitude command tends to suggest mass package removals when packages in unstable are temporarily inconsistent. This situation is a bit frightening. Usually, "apt-get dist-upgrade" should resolve this situation. This situation seems to be caused mostly by the version skew among packages depended or recommended by a meta-package such as gnome-core.

And later Alad touched on the idea that mixing 'may' have caused a problem

However pvsage post adds more light,

Primary differences between apt-get and aptitude are in conflict resolution

which goes right back to that note above.

Choose one or the other or mix carefully if you know what you are doing.  Obviously HoaS knows what he is doing.

I'll continue to use 'apt-get' because I know it.


·  ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓   ↓  ·
BunsenLabs Forums now Open for Registration
·  ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑   ↑  · BL ModSquad

Offline

#17 2014-09-19 22:05:59

ffsantos92
Member
From: Portugal
Registered: 2014-09-19
Posts: 21
Website

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

Thank you, that's what i was looking for  big_smile


#! 11 "Waldorf" User
ASUS X550L | Intel Core i5 - 4200U, 1,6GHz | NVIDIA GeForce 740M | 4GB RAM | 500GB HD

Offline

#18 2014-09-19 22:16:13

josephg
#! CrunchBanger
From: Surrey
Registered: 2011-10-24
Posts: 165
Website

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

i have been using apt-get since the debian potato days, and i have never ever had any problems. i always remove aptitude, as i never use it. i am usually on stable or testing though, never sid. and i religiously deborphan to continuously purge my systems of unwanted pkgs. the less you have, the less chances of things going wrong. also i keep replacing bigger pkgs with smaller ones as i find them.


leaner code is cleaner code is more efficient code

Offline

#19 2014-09-20 15:06:15

CSCoder4ever
BL Keyboard Troll
From: /dev/zero
Registered: 2013-09-03
Posts: 2,256

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

I can confirm this to work, though I had to go a couple kernel versions back since fglrx does not like the latest backported kernel.

Offline

#20 2014-09-20 16:23:08

Head_on_a_Stick
CatMod
From: A world of pure imagination
Registered: 2014-01-21
Posts: 4,797

Re: Backported Kernel in 3 simple commands

EDIT NOTE: I have changed aptitude to apt-get after investigating the issue raised by @porkpiehat.
I found a section in the Debian Reference which is relevant:

Debian Reference wrote:

[Note]     Note

Although the aptitude command comes with rich features such as its enhanced package resolver, this complexity has caused (or may still causes) some regressions such as Bug #411123, Bug #514930, and Bug #570377. In case of doubt, please use the apt-get and apt-cache commands over the aptitude command.

Which is all rather embaressing for me as I have been advising all & sundry to use aptitude -- I was seduced by the extra features and forgot that these will also introduce the opportunity for more borkage...
hmm

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Server: acrobat

Debian Logo