Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'd like someone to enlighten me as to what exactly goes on with aptitude when I want a kernel.

As we all know, there's pretty much the following kernel option:

  1. linux-image-generic

  2. linux-image-server

  3. linux-image-virtual

This morning I did an install and it had linux-image-generic on it, so I ran the following:

apt-get -y remove linux-image-*

This removed all my kernels as expected, I followed suit with running:

apt-get install linux-image-virtual

Says I've installed linux-image-server!?

Am I missing something here, because I checked twice and it did it twice, however if I manually select a kernel (in my instance I used: linux-image-2.6.35-30-virtual) it will install linux-image-virtual.

This seems rather strange to me?

Details: Running Ubuntu 9.10

Am I missing something? :)

share|improve this question
    
I always use apt-get -u install ... or apt-get -u dist-upgrade when installing or upgrading, just to see the explicit package selections being made. –  sarnold Apr 2 '12 at 1:43
    
@sarnold Yep, I'd normally do that too but I still find this a little weird, don't you? It just seems to me like, logically if you ask for linux-image-virtual you should be presented with a stable linux-image-virtual? –  Karl Kloppenborg Apr 2 '12 at 2:04
add comment

migrated from stackoverflow.com Apr 2 '12 at 2:09

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Essentially, here's whats going on:

The package linux-image-virtual is for virtual machines. Virtual Machines are traditionally servers.

However, if you installed the linux-image-2.6.35-30 package, it should install the normal Kernel.

Hopefully that answers your question.

share|improve this answer
    
See that's what I thought, I was just under the assumption that ubuntu would be very strict with their naming conventions, because isn't it correct to say -server does not have virtualized stuff in it (ie: xenblk) and -virtual does? Maybe it's me who is a bit too strict? :P –  Karl Kloppenborg Apr 2 '12 at 4:35
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.