Re: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question

On 06/29/2006, Linas Žvirblis wrote:

Why should it? Many people prefer to manually choose their kernels, as
this is not something you can upgrade at any given time. It is not a
problem either way - installing or removing a meta package is not that
hard, is it?

Hi Linas,

You are correct that installing the meta package is not hard.

The issue is security; without the meta package, kernel updates are
/not/ automatic with apt-get/aptitude upgrades. For desktop users and
non-developers like me who maintain our own systems, it's easy to miss
the fact that kernel security updates are skipped without the meta
package. For this reason, I believe the current default installation
procedure and docs are flawed.

But it seems I'm alone on this as my post to this list got no response
last April, http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2006/04/msg00547.html
pasted below.

Regards,
Ralph

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Submit bug report to which package for security upgrade?
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:05:59 -0400
From: Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@xxxxxxx>
To: debian-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@xxxxxxxxxx>

The recent kernel 2.6 security upgrade for sarge revealed a packaging
problem and/or documentation issue I attempted to report on
debian-security (1).

Basically, on a new sarge install, kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686 was
installed by the installer. kernel-image-2.6-686 was not installed, but
it was *required* for the security update. Only by reading the Debian
Security Advisory and seeing nothing upgraded after an aptitude
update/upgrade did I discover the problem.

Moritz Muehlenhoff on debian-security says this is a documentation
problem (2). I see it as a packaging problem as well.

Rather than posting this on debian-doc, I'd appreciate your perspectives
and suggestions inasmuch as debian-user is the designated list for such
advice (3).

Is it a bug? Which package should get the bug report?

Thanks & regards,
Ralph

(1) http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2006/03/msg00192.html
(2) http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2006/04/msg00014.html
(3) http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Program Needs libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3
    ... >> upgrade with the changes in C libraries, but I know very little about C ... Maybe installing it is enough to solve ... I can't find a package by that name. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Summary: A Raid manager 6.22.1 issue with Solaris 2.6 on E3000
    ... I will be installing 4.5FP6 BS on this machine so if there ... SUNWosafw Open Storage Array Firmware ... SUNWosamn Open Storage Array Man Pages ... Using as the package base directory. ...
    (SunManagers)
  • Re: Removing desktop environments
    ... It would be put back on upgrade though with the new stuff. ... Installing one package at a time and asking yourself thereafter -- do I ... Whenever I remove a package I always purge except system stuff I'll generally ...
    (Debian-User)
  • A Raid manager 6.22.1 issue with Solaris 2.6 on E3000
    ... SUNWosafw Open Storage Array Firmware ... SUNWosamn Open Storage Array Man Pages ... Using as the package base directory. ... Installing Open Storage Array Firmware as ...
    (SunManagers)
  • Re: cold plug with udev
    ... unless there is a dependency problem or it's marked as held. ... to be kept behind if installing it would mean either installing a new ... I don't see that either of those would prevent upgrade. ... removal of some other package and doing so would break another package. ...
    (uk.comp.os.linux)