On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 18:26 -0200, Gustavo De Nardin (spuk) wrote: > * Replying Adam Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Tue 13 Feb 2007 > 18:14): > > On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 17:00 +0000, Vincent Panel wrote: > > > Yes, but updating the kernel is not only a matter of security > > > (bugfixing and new devices support too). And even if it were the > > > case, why would easing this task (updating the kernel) be a bad > > > thing ? > > > > It's not. > > > > How to say this in a diplomatic way...the issue is, well, procedural. > > Everyone who was voiced an opinion agrees that the change should be > > made. However, those who are responsible for making the change appear > > to be busy with other things, of whose nature we know nothing since > > they never communicate. > > FWIW, I mostly disagree with automatic kernel updates, unless, maybe, if > they are security-*only* updates. Current Linux kernel development > unmodel makes me very wary of changing a working kernel.
Except we don't do point upgrades for stable releases, so the upstream development model doesn't really matter: all 2007 and 2007.1 kernels will be based on 2.6.17, so the fact that upstream probably broke a bunch of stuff in 2.6.18 isn't relevant. What matters is how reliable our upgrades are, which is in my experience 'very' (I've seen only one report of a regression with 2007 kernel upgrades so far). > Of course, a -latest kernel scheme, which one can *choose* to use, is > ok.. Yes, -latest should go in regardless of whether it's chosen to 'activate' (i.e. install the -latest packages) it by default or not. -- adamw
