On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 05:40:26PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > The monthly snapshots would be for users who want the fresh > > > software, but don't want to manage the daily grind of updating to > > > ensure that their system is secure. The way I think of it is that > > > we "support" 2 cadences for updates, daily and monthly.
> > As above, that seems like something we'd want to discourage. Even so, > > it is already possible in R, without snapshots. It takes two clicks: > > 1. When Software Updater appears, expand "Details of updates". > > 2. Uncheck the checkbox next to "Other updates", leaving "Security > > updates" checked. (These groupings appear only if any of the updates > > are security updates.) > This is a good point. (It has no real-world testing, because we have > never had a release where we applied changes both in the release pocket > and in -security; we have only had releases where we applied changes > only in the release pocket, and releases where we applied changes in > both -security and -updates. That said, I agree that this argument > holds up theoretically, and thus we could do this without the complexity > of staging everything in -updates.) Two clicks sounds simple, but it wouldn't be very obvious to users who are meaning to track the monthly that they should be un-selecting "other updates". Is there a good way for us to pre-unselect this for users who are opting in to the monthly updates? Also, Colin, I think one of the reasons we thought we needed a separate -updates pocket and to keep the release pocket stable between monthlies was for installability of extra software downloaded at install time. I don't see that changing selections in update-manager helps with this at all; if we're still going to have to use -updates to ensure this kind of consistency, I don't see any benefit to tweaks at the update-manager level rather than at the apt sources.list level. > Another possibility that AFAIK has not been discussed is to use the new > phased updates facility; we could set the Phased-Update-Percentage to 0 > until we want to roll something out. Unless you mean to have users who follow the rolling release ignore the Phased-Update-Percentage, I'm not sure how this would help. And using Phased-Update-Percentage that way feels dodgy to me. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
