Re: Shouldn't distros and ISVs ensure that
security updates get deployed promptly?
[Posted February 11, 2009 by jake]
| From: |
| Dan Kegel <dank-AT-kegel.com> |
| To: |
| Ritesh Raj Sarraf <rrs-AT-researchut.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: Shouldn't distros and ISVs ensure that
security updates get deployed promptly? |
| Date: |
| Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:21:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID: |
| <a71bd89a0902040821m10a0bfdbr479ad14bd0238925@mail.gmail.com> |
| Cc: |
| desktop_architects-AT-lists.linux-foundation.org |
| Archive-link: |
| Article, Thread
|
Ritesh Raj Sarraf <rrs@researchut.com> wrote:
> Should the user really want silent updates ?
> For updates with priority "security", I think it should just pop-up more
> often.
People ignore dialogs like that. IMHO if we're going to avoid
botnet nightmares, we're going to need at least some silent security updates.
> But if someone really needs it, it should be do-able (Assuming one is not on a
> rolling-release)
> apt ships a /etc/cron.daily/apt script.
> So with the following in place:
> APT {
> Get {
> Assume-Yes "true";
> Upgrade "true";
> } }
> One should be able to achieve silent updates
assume-yes sounds dangerous. And that whole change seems
rather global, unless I misunderstand. I don't want to change
the entire system update policy, just the policy for apps with
crucial security updates.
- Dan
(
Log in to post comments)