Automatic and silent installation of security updates

[Zach]

On 7/8/05, Martijn van de Streek <martijn at foodfight.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005, Zach wrote:
> 
> > > You can't force people to upgrade.
> > I think you could have this configurable (by an admin with sudo
> > priveledges).  Perhaps a sane default would be no automatic upgrades
> 
> Then nobody will enable it. Same problem arises.
> 
That's okay.  Just have it as an option and publicize it as a new
security feature in the release announcement/wikis/howtos/mail
lists/etc.  If it gets good feedback without a lot of moaning and
groaning then in the next release change the default to automatic
non-kernel updates.  Make sure to publicize that too, or people really
will complain.

This would be a big and potentially controversial change.  There's
nothing wrong, IMHO, with rolling it out in stages across multiple
releases.

> >
> > if the package name contains 'linux-image', it's either a kernel or a
> > metapackage for a kernel, and should be treated differently. from
> > other packages.
> 
> Filtering by package name is considered Evil and Wrong by many people,
> or so I believe.
I hadn't heard that, but I can believe it.  Perhaps "Many People"
could chime in and explain why he thinks it's bad? :-)

Also there's more to filter on besides package name.  Filtering on
"linux-image" just came to mind.

> 
> Martijn
> --
>