2008/10/22 Sean Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Alan Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/10/22 Sean Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Thanks for clearing that up - is there an argument that the update > >> process should be more clever than that, as I'd guess it'd put off > >> "newbies"... ? > >> > > > > There's a compelling argument that "newbies" should _not_ run the > > development version of Ubuntu. > > Fair point, Al... fair point... > > But would the same sort of issues not arise with a production one? I > guess the rate of updates would be less, but surely there's no reason > why somebody might not ignore the "updates available" icon for a > couple of weeks to find that there's been 3 security patches or > whatever and the one they originally were told they needed had been > superceded? > > Or does the process work differently with alphas and betas? > > Sean > > -- > [email protected] > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ >
The package lists are updated via a daily cron job, so this shouldn't happen in most cases. However, I think there might still be a very small window of opportunity for it to happen for somebody who gets notified that updates are available, ignores it and then leaves their machine unpowered for a couple of weeks, then comes back and immediately tries to update before the package lists have had a chance to be updated again. Looking through the packages you had problems with, and taking gnome-control-center as an example - this was updated twice in a single day very recently. Cheers Chris
-- [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
