Bug 113234 - kernel fails to load correct modules after upgrade via up2date
Summary: kernel fails to load correct modules after upgrade via up2date
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 112914
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1
Classification: Red Hat
Component: up2date   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 2.1
Hardware: i686
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Adrian Likins
QA Contact: Fanny Augustin
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2004-01-10 02:59 UTC by Jim Richard
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:06 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-02-21 19:00:42 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description Jim Richard 2004-01-10 02:59:29 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5)
Gecko/20031007

Description of problem:
after I completed up2date; getting my new kernel and all other
packages and then rebooted, I had no network.

My network interface is on the board and handled by a loadable module.
Apparently the module dependencies did not get transfered over as part
of the kernel upgrade; I had to manually do a "depmod -a" to resolve
the issue.

It doesn't seem like this is normal, up2date does not complete all the
steps necesary for a kernel upgrade

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
upgrade to latest kernel with up2date

Actual Results:  had to do a depmod -a to get loadbale modules correct

Expected Results:  should be able to run up2date and get a new kernel
without having to manually update loadbale modules afterwards

Additional info:
Comment 1 Suzanne Hillman 2004-01-12 21:41:06 UTC 
Hmm. This looks possibly related to (maybe even the same as) bug #112914.
Comment 2 Jim Richard 2004-01-13 02:08:24 UTC 
I would say yes, exactly the same problem, so go ahead and kill this
as a duplicate of 112914 if you'd like ....
Comment 3 Rob Kearey 2004-01-16 02:22:55 UTC 
Same thing here - bug 113640
Comment 4 Adrian Likins 2004-01-20 19:12:56 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 112914 ***
Comment 5 Red Hat Bugzilla 2006-02-21 19:00:42 UTC 
Changed to 'CLOSED' state since 'RESOLVED' has been deprecated.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.