Re: automatic security updates
On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 16:05, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>
> > Well, he wants something automatic. (btw, the semi-colon between
> > your 2 apt-get commands is a bit scary. Better to make the upgrade
> > dependent on the update via "&&".)
>
> If the update fails, how will the upgrade have anything to do?
But that's the point: if the "apt-get update" fails, the
"apt-get *upgrade" should *not* do anything...
> > Slightly OT: since "apt-get upgrade" does not download packages
> > that have new package dependencies, would it be better to do:
> > "apt-get update && apt-get -d -u dist-upgrade" instead?
>
> If you want something automatic and are running testing or unstable,
> no, because -d will stop anything from actually happening
> automatically, and because without -d dist-upgrade is quite capable of
> removing all the packages you use in favor of something it thinks is
> important.
True, but many production boxen will stay with stable: note
how many boxen are still running potato...
> If you're running stable, afaik the package dependencies rarely (if
> ever) change.
Rarely, yes, but it's possible. Running stable, how could
"apt-get dist-upgrade" hurt?
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment |
| by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." |
| Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: