On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:25:02AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:48:56PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > > > Cameron Moore wrote: > > > >How about another dumb question? Okay, here goes... > > > > > > > >Apt never seems to notice that a new kernel package is available for > > > >updating -- I have to explicitly list the available kernel packages and > > > >install the new one. Is this a bug or a feature? In either case, is > > > >there a way to fix this annoying behavior? I've seen it happen before > > > >on a different package, but I don't recall what it was. Thanks > > > > > > That is older apt, and apt from FreshRPMS and other paackagers. > > > > What? Where did you pick that one up? ATrpms is deploying apt > > 0.5.15cnc5 for quite many repos (and all RH dists for RH7.3 to FC1 > > BTW), is obviously the latest and still does not upgrade kernels by > > default, which is a matter of policy, neither bug, nor > > feature. Personally I am fine with forcing the user to chose a kernel, > > since this is probably the perfect example of not using plain stupid > > EVR upgrade paths. > > "older apt" in context of fedora.us. The current apt in fedora.us testing > repository has a Lua script which automatically offers to "upgrade" > (==install latest version alongside) any packages in allow-duplicated. The > apt in fedora.us "always" had kernel-upgrade script taking care of just > the kernel but it wasn't turned on by default. The upgradevirt.lua > (http://laiskiainen.org/apt/lua/upgrade-virtual/) script handles not only > kernel but any allow-duplicated pkgs *and* is turned on by default in the > latest packages. Thanks, that explains it a bit better. While AllowDuplicates is not a kernel reserved entity, I personally prefer to choose kernels. For example in the upcoming transition phase form 2.4 to 2.6 I wouldn't like to have 2.6 installed on some machines. > > > apt from fedora.us (soon to be published for Legacy too) is totally > > > not made to be used for automated upgrades like some people > > > currently use yum. As a result, our apt is set to offer to upgrade > > > to the latest kernel if it is available. > > > > You mean apt from fedora.us will require interactive sessions? I don't > > believe Panu would permit castrating his work like that ;) > > I don't quite follow what Warren is saying there either :) No reason why > apt couldn't be used for automated upgrades like with yum cron job. Well, that's our Warren ;) -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgp00160.pgp
Description: PGP signature
