Re: How to block kernel updates

[Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>]

On Saturday 08 February 2014 20:48:14 Tom H wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > On Saturday 08 February 2014 12:29:30 Tom H wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Lisi Reisz
> >> <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >>> On Saturday 08 February 2014 09:40:43 Chris Bannister wrote:
> >>>> AFAIUI, if the package has a different name, as newer releases
> >>>> of kernels do, then APT won't consider it an update, it is
> >>>> just another package.
> >>>
> >>> aptitude has just upgraded me automatically from 3.10-x bpo to
> >>> 3.11-x bpo then to 3.12-0 bpo. I imagine it depends on what it
> >>> has been told to do: safe-upgrade or full-upgrade.
> >>
> >> Irrespective of upgrade/safe-upgrade and
> >> dist-upgrade/full-upgrade, linux-image won't be bumped up to a
> >> later kernel version if you don't have "linux-image-<arch>"
> >> installed.
> >
> > But recently (maybe a week or two?) I did have the earlier
> > kernels installed, so it must upgrade the linux-image it uses -
> > which surely comes in the end to the same thing?
> >
> > I did not install the metapackage deliberately, in fact I didn't
> > know it was there before this thread. I installed kernel 3.10
> > from backports, which updated automatically first to to 3.11 and
> > then to 3.12. Had I wanted it not to upgrade, would I have needed
> > to search out the metapackage and remove it? Or hold it, of
> > course.
>
> What I meant by "kernel version" was 3.2, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12.

Yes, that is what I took you to mean.
>
> So linux-image-am64 in wheezy, wheezy-updates, wheezy/updates, will
> only pull in minor versions of 3.2. For example the latest upgrade
> is from 3.2.51-1 to 3.2.54-2.
>
> And linux-image-amd64 in wheezy-backports will pull in 3.10, 3.11,
> 3.12, ...

> You're given a choic in d-i to install the metapackage or a
> specific linux-image (perhaps only in expert mode).

I've never seen this, and until now would not have known what it was 
on about.  Nor was I given the choice when I installed 3.10 from 
backports.  But it obviously installed the metapackage by default.

> I'd remove linux-image-amd64 rather than hold it if you don't want
> your kernel to be upgraded to 3.13 when it becomes available, but
> I'd check first whether 3.12 will keep on receiving security
> patches.

I'm quite happy to let it go on upgrading itself as it has so far.  If 
I mess with it I shall only cause myself problems.  The developers 
know way more than I do!

Thanks for the info.
Lisi