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?
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
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Submit bug report to which package for security upgrade?
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:05:59 -0400
From: Ralph Katz <email@example.com>
CC: Moritz Muehlenhoff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The recent kernel 2.6 security upgrade for sarge revealed a packaging
problem and/or documentation issue I attempted to report on
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
Is it a bug? Which package should get the bug report?
Thanks & regards,