upgrade from 2.6.32-24.38 to 2.6.32-24.39 uses conflicting namespace

[Daniel Kauffman]

When upgrading from 2.6.32-24.38 to 2.6.32-24.39, both kernels use the 2.6.32-24-generic namespace, with the consequence that the upgrade overwrites the previous kernel and after the upgrade only one kernel is installed, instead of two.

Personally, whenever upgrading the kernel, I test the newer kernel before removing the older (known-good) kernel. In this case, however, the old kernel was wiped without any input from the system administrator.

I would consider this a critical packaging error.

Version information after the upgrade:

# uname -a
Linux powerbox 2.6.32-24-generic #39-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jul 28 05:14:15 UTC 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux

# cat /proc/version_signature
Ubuntu 2.6.32-24.39-generic 2.6.32.15+drm33.5

[kernel-janitor (kernel-janitor)]

Hi Daniel,

Please be sure to confirm this issue exists with the latest development release of Ubuntu. ISO CD images are available from http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily/current/ . If the issue remains, please run the following command from a Terminal (Applications->Accessories->Terminal). It will automatically gather and attach updated debug information to this report.

apport-collect -p linux 614138

Also, if you could test the latest upstream kernel available that would be great. It will allow additional upstream developers to examine the issue. Refer to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelMainlineBuilds . Once you've tested the upstream kernel, please remove the 'needs-upstream-testing' tag. This can be done by clicking on the yellow pencil icon next to the tag located at the bottom of the bug description and deleting the 'needs-upstream-testing' text. Please let us know your results.

Thanks in advance.

    [This is an automated message. Apologies if it has reached you inappropriately; please just reply to this message indicating so.]

[Daniel Kauffman (sound-man-dan)]

This bug report is against the kernel packaging, not the kernel. Testing the upstream kernel would test the kernel, not the packaging, and therefore is not applicable in this case.