On Tuesday 13 February 2007 22:21:47 Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Gustavo De Nardin (spuk) wrote: > > * Replying Adam Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Tue 13 Feb 2007 > > > > 18:14): > >> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 17:00 +0000, Vincent Panel wrote: > >>> Yes, but updating the kernel is not only a matter of security > >>> (bugfixing and new devices support too). And even if it were the > >>> case, why would easing this task (updating the kernel) be a bad > >>> thing ? > >> > >> It's not. > >> > >> How to say this in a diplomatic way...the issue is, well, procedural. > >> Everyone who was voiced an opinion agrees that the change should be > >> made. However, those who are responsible for making the change appear > >> to be busy with other things, of whose nature we know nothing since > >> they never communicate. > > > > FWIW, I mostly disagree with automatic kernel updates, unless, maybe, if > > they are security-*only* updates. Current Linux kernel development > > unmodel makes me very wary of changing a working kernel. > > > > Of course, a -latest kernel scheme, which one can *choose* to use, is > > ok.. > > Unless I misunderstood, no one really ask for automatic kernel update > installation and reboot. Rather a way to _compute_ than a new kernel is > available, as for all other package updates. 'You just have to read > security mailing-list' does not answer this need.
%post reboot would be good for a plf kernel package however :) -- Michael Scherer
