Okay, I don't understand all the output of 'apt-cache policy'. I understand it more with your desciption. Having an additional "security+update" would be a solution for update-manager.
I'm wondering if there isn't a larger issue though when you consider the whole of the Ubuntu desktop. In the "Software Sources" dialog, I've checked the button to auto-install security updates. So, I'm *expecting* my computer is at least as secure as is all the security fixes Ubuntu has deemed important enough to fix. I see that the pattern of the updates for the five packages I've list above is: 1.) regular update, 2.) security-update, 3.) regular update. Now, unless the security update in 2.) only fixed a security hole that was only introduced in the regular update in 1.), at the point in time I reported this bug, my computer was not as secure as I *expect* it to be (as was described in the previous paragraph). So basically, I'm expecting consistency between the Software Sources dialog and the update manager. If you have a new section in update- manager called something like "security+update", as an unenlightened end user, I'm still going to wonder why I don't have the security fixes that exist in this new section. You could just expect end-users to become enlightened, but my opinion is that that's a little more digging than the average user Ubuntu is hoping to obtain should be expected to dig. Depending on the answer to some of the questions I've asked, maybe this is a bug that affects a 2nd package, the one that the Software Sources dialog is in? -- update-manager indicates that updates are security updates even if they're not https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/209169 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
