On (29/06/06 10:57), Ralph Katz wrote: > On 06/29/2006, Linas ?virblis wrote: > > > Why should it? Many people prefer to manually choose their kernels, as > > this is not something you can upgrade at any given time. It is not a > > problem either way - installing or removing a meta package is not that > > hard, is it? > > Hi Linas, > > You are correct that installing the meta package is not hard. > > The issue is security; without the meta package, kernel updates are > /not/ automatic with apt-get/aptitude upgrades. For desktop users and > non-developers like me who maintain our own systems, it's easy to miss > the fact that kernel security updates are skipped without the meta > package. For this reason, I believe the current default installation > procedure and docs are flawed.
When I used the installer the other day I was given a choice of kernels to install. There were 2 2.6.x actual kernels, and the two associated meta-packages. Perhaps you could make a proposal to the debian-installer team, that they put a little explanation underneath of what the difference is. Also, you could propose to those who are responsible for the installation manual that they include a paragraph explaining the purpose of the meta-packages, and the pros/cons of installing them. James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
