On 2/14/07, Michael Scherer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 22:21:47 Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > Of course, a -latest kernel scheme, which one can *choose* to use, is
> > ok..
>
> Unless I misunderstood, no one really ask for automatic kernel update
> installation and reboot. Rather a way to _compute_ than a new kernel is
> available, as for all other package updates. 'You just have to read
> security mailing-list' does not answer this need.
%post
reboot
would be good for a plf kernel package however :)
Glibc (which is automatically updated...) already restarts all the services.
%post
echo "Restarting all the services of this run level"
/usr/sbin/glibc-post-upgrade
There's no logic behind all of this but only foolish decisions.
