Re: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question
- From: James Westby <jw+debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:08:53 +0100
On (29/06/06 10:57), Ralph Katz wrote:
On 06/29/2006, Linas ?virblis 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.
When I used the installer the other day I was given a choice of kernels
to install. There were 2 2.6.x actual kernels, and the two associated
meta-packages. Perhaps you could make a proposal to the debian-installer
team, that they put a little explanation underneath of what the
difference is.
Also, you could propose to those who are responsible for the
installation manual that they include a paragraph explaining the purpose
of the meta-packages, and the pros/cons of installing them.
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References:
- Re: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question
- From: Linas Žvirblis
- Re: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question
- From: Ralph Katz
- Re: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question
- Prev by Date: Re: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question
- Next by Date: biggest recent wipeouts
- Previous by thread: Re: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question
- Next by thread: RE: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
