[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: OT: Apt and the kernel



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 physik fu-berlin de

Attachment: pgp00019.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]