New kernel image naming structure
Hi all,
I have recently noticed that kernel images are now being packaged with the
Debian build version _included in the package name_. For example:
kernel-image-2.4.20-1-686 - Linux kernel image for version 2.4.20 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV.
kernel-image-2.4.20-3-686 - Linux kernel image for version 2.4.20 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV.
I discovered this after curiosity as to why I had not recently been
prompted by apt to upgrade a kernel after 2.4.20 security issues.
It appears that this naming convention breaks some of the security
benefits of staying current using apt. An apt-get upgrade when
running the latest kernel release is now not enough to be prompted to
upgrade to a newer binary. It appears one has to search for additional
packages named with a higher Debian build number and manually install
those differently named packages.
What do people think of the idea of convenient upgrade packages so that
one can stay current with a 2.x kernel series simply by installing the
upgrade package. The upgrade packages could be named:
kernel-image-2.4-386 - Upgrades to the latest 2.4.x Linux kernel image on 386
kernel-image-2.4-586tsc - Upgrades to the latest 2.4.x Linux kernel image on Pentium-Classic
kernel-image-2.4-686 - Upgrades to the latest 2.4.x Linux kernel image on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV
kernel-image-2.4-686-smp - Upgrades to the latest 2.4.x Linux kernel image on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV SMP
kernel-image-2.4-k7 - Upgrades to the latest 2.4.x Linux kernel image on AMD K7
kernel-image-2.4 k7-smp - Upgrades to the latest 2.4.x Linux kernel image on AMD K7 SMP
etc.
All the upgrade packages would provide is a dependency upon the latest
relevant kernel image and a conflict with previous (perhaps n-2) binary
versions so that previous build versions can be easily removed or purged
at the same time packages are upgraded.
With an upgrade package installed one would never need to search for the
latest relevant version of a Debian kernel package, even with newer
upstream kernel versions.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: