New kernel, should be the default

[Scott Talbot]

On Sun, 2004-10-10 at 09:47 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-10-10 at 01:05 -0700, Jon Savage wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=135161 sounds
> > like a good solution IMHO.
> 
> It does sound like something reasonable, but IMHO it's a solution
> looking for a problem. Up2date already skips kernel packages by default,
> and forces you to specifically request that the kernel be updated.
> 
> For 99% (or more) of the people who use up2date, selecting that means
> that they *do* want to install and use the new kernel, and up2date keeps
> the old kernel around for safety and so that you can go back to it if
> you have any problems. This behavior was consistent and clear, and I've
> *NEVER* seen anyone complain that setting the new kernel as default was
> inappropriate and excessively risky.
>
> This change makes *no* sense. Now I have to run up2date. Specifically
> select the kernel to be updated from the list of skipped packages. And
> then, once it's all said and done, the new up2date forces me to go edit
> grub.conf??? NO!
> 
seems to me that those who don't want the kernel defaulted, probably
wouldn't want it downloaded either and could, therefore, make use of the
(yum) --exclude=kernel option or up2date's packages to skip feature.
That way we each get what we want.


> It's damned unfriendly behavior from an application, and smacks of a
> Microsoft-style "Are you really really sure you want to do this?"
> attitude. What you're going to get is a boatload of users who never use
> a new kernel since they didn't know enough to edit grub.conf.
> 
> This change is a HUGE step backward, contributes *NOTHING* to the
> general safety and reliability of Linux and indeed will reduce it as
> people start using older and older kernels because the new ones were
> never selected as the default.
> 
> What do we have to do to get it changed back to the sane way it used to
> operate?
> 
> Cheers,