Hello,
I frequently use backports as a method for safely using future updates on older systems - strong use case is frequently way updated versions of ssh-server.
Backports available never show with apt as "required" unless priority of repo is set higher than default debian repos. They can show as "available" but are not usually flagged by apt as "needed" unless a version is installed from that repo.
Since 4.0.11 patchman release, kernel updates from backports are now flagged as required within patchman. Yes, there's a use case for newer kernels on older systems eg enabling newer hardware but not sure the behaviour of patchman should deviate from apt?
The screenshot below shows a fully-patched system where patchman now identifies a kernel update in backports as required for that particular machine. "apt update" and/or "apt list --upgradable" on the CLI does not enforce this requirement.
Wonder if way round it is a "optional updates" section that doesnt skew required results or maybe a tickbox per registered host within patchman to count kernel updates or not.
Hope this makes sense and cheers for patchman!
Hello,
I frequently use backports as a method for safely using future updates on older systems - strong use case is frequently way updated versions of ssh-server.
Backports available never show with apt as "required" unless priority of repo is set higher than default debian repos. They can show as "available" but are not usually flagged by apt as "needed" unless a version is installed from that repo.
Since 4.0.11 patchman release, kernel updates from backports are now flagged as required within patchman. Yes, there's a use case for newer kernels on older systems eg enabling newer hardware but not sure the behaviour of patchman should deviate from apt?
The screenshot below shows a fully-patched system where patchman now identifies a kernel update in backports as required for that particular machine. "apt update" and/or "apt list --upgradable" on the CLI does not enforce this requirement.
Wonder if way round it is a "optional updates" section that doesnt skew required results or maybe a tickbox per registered host within patchman to count kernel updates or not.
Hope this makes sense and cheers for patchman!