Re: Auto. security upgrades

2000-03-02 Thread Thierry Laronde
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 01:17:47PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thierry Laronde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02 Mar, 2000 12:38 > > > > Well, there are two problems : > > > > 1) It's much more difficult to change the internals of dpkg > > than to use some > > tricks in order to implement these "secu

RE: Auto. security upgrades

2000-03-02 Thread arto . astala
Thierry Laronde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02 Mar, 2000 12:38 > On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 09:59:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [...] > > Maybe, if a prompt could be arranged... > > It should default to leaving the package on hold, however. > > > > Well, there are two problems : > > 1) It's much

Re: Auto. security upgrades

2000-03-02 Thread Thierry Laronde
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 09:59:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm not sure removing a package on hold is a good thing, > after all the admin places it on hold as a specific action > to indicate that normal package management should not > touch it until the admin decides otherwise. > > Maybe

RE: Auto. security upgrades

2000-03-02 Thread arto . astala
I'm not sure removing a package on hold is a good thing, after all the admin places it on hold as a specific action to indicate that normal package management should not touch it until the admin decides otherwise. Maybe, if a prompt could be arranged... It should default to leaving the package on