Quoting Marcin Owsiany ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 05:24:54PM +0300, Martin Fluch wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> >
> > > I guess this kind of kernel packages would be for people quite concerned
> > > about security but also quite lazy :)
> >
> > I guess
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 05:24:54PM +0300, Martin Fluch wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
>
> > I guess this kind of kernel packages would be for people quite concerned
> > about security but also quite lazy :)
>
> I guess, this is mutual exclusive. People which are lazy will lea
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:46:20AM +, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
>
> I guess this kind of kernel packages would be for people quite concerned
> about security but also quite lazy :)
> Also if you administer a lot of boxes, and if they work ok with the default
> kernel you will find it _a lot_ more
Brian Servis wrote:
> > Ok. To my way of thinking it should be called kernel-image_2.0.34,
> > kernel-image_2.0.36-3, etc. That way apt-get upgrade would grab updated
> > kernels for the user.
>
> If kernel-images did not have the version in the package name then you
> could not have two diffe
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> I guess this kind of kernel packages would be for people quite concerned
> about security but also quite lazy :)
I guess, this is mutual exclusive. People which are lazy will leave many
(and I think also bigger) security holes some where else on the sy
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> That is the point of this idea. If you want your kernel to be upgraded
> automatically, you install secure-kernel, if you only want to be informed,
> you install secure-kernel-info, if you don't care at all, you instal
> neither.
I had read nothing of t
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 02:42:38AM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:27:43AM +, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 09:41:26PM -0500, Ashley Clark wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > > > the way to solve the problem would be to create
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 10:27:43AM +, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 09:41:26PM -0500, Ashley Clark wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > > the way to solve the problem would be to create a package called e.g.
> > > "secure-kernel", which would depend on the
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 09:41:26PM -0500, Ashley Clark wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > the way to solve the problem would be to create a package called e.g.
> > "secure-kernel", which would depend on the most secure "kernel-image-".
> > Then if the security team has newer ke
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> the way to solve the problem would be to create a package called e.g.
> "secure-kernel", which would depend on the most secure "kernel-image-".
> Then if the security team has newer kernel with security bugfixes, they
> would make a new version of "secur
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 05:19:24PM -0400, Fraser Campbell wrote:
> I realize the kernel is a very special piece of software but still see no
> reason why it is treated differently from normal software. Perhaps the
> upgrade process depends on the virtual package kernel-image which I don't
> seem t
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 05:05:21PM -0500, Brian Servis wrote:
> *- On 28 Sep, Fraser Campbell wrote about "Re: Kernel upgrades = security
> upgrades"
> > Brian Servis wrote:
> >
> >> Notice that the version is part of the package name. Thus a
> >> k
*- On 28 Sep, Fraser Campbell wrote about "Re: Kernel upgrades = security
upgrades"
> Brian Servis wrote:
>
>> Notice that the version is part of the package name. Thus a
>> kernel-image-2.0.34 and kernel-image-2.0.36 are two totally different
>> packages as
Brian Servis wrote:
> Notice that the version is part of the package name. Thus a
> kernel-image-2.0.34 and kernel-image-2.0.36 are two totally different
> packages as far as Debian is concerned, except that they both provide
> the virtual package kernel-image and that fact is not determined unti
*- On 28 Sep, Fraser Campbell wrote about "Kernel upgrades = security upgrades"
> I am curious as to how the kernel upgrades in Debian are done. Recently I
> set up a new slink system. The kernel installed was 2.0.34 (older boot
> disk). I added "deb http://security.de
I am curious as to how the kernel upgrades in Debian are done. Recently I
set up a new slink system. The kernel installed was 2.0.34 (older boot
disk). I added "deb http://security.debian.org/ stable updates" to
/etc/apt/sources.list.
An "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" grabbed several package
16 matches
Mail list logo