Filtering of Updates

[SiGiS]

Good day,

I am sure there is an obvious setting or way to do this but I am a bit addled with age so apologies in advance Is there anyway I can Automatically filter the updates list to only include urgent level/security updates and exclude any that do not have a change log and/or is superfluous changes/library's that my system does not use.
I know there is a setting to only notify on kernel security updates but that doesn't filter the list afik?

Much appreciated

[gittiest personITW]

Hi,
Are you addled by youth or addled by experience?

There used to be a way a couple of years ago to filter by 'urgency' but that was sometimes confusing and nothing is ever black and white.
You can disable updates for certain packages when they come through.

Give us an example of what you are worried or not sure of, about updating.

In general it is probably best to just do the updates - remember these wizards aren't just wasting their time updating software/patches etc.
No harm in doing Timeshift snapshots though (best to keep them on a different drive from your system drive - external if needed - this is important - and makes it easy to go back to a working system should there be a problem with (rarely) an update or hardware issue.)
Let us know if you have q's about this but probably start a new thread if it is about backups/Timeshift.

[Hoser Rob]

I preferred the llevelled updates myself, you need timeshift the way it works now.

[JoeFootball]

Is there anyway I can Automatically filter the updates list to only include urgent level/security updates and exclude any that do not have a change log and/or is superfluous changes/library's that my system does not use.

I don't know of a way to automatically filter them, but you can identify them by their symbol ...

Shield = Security Update
Up Arrow = Software Update
Lightning = Kernel Update
Globe = Third-Party Update

[SiGiS]

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated

At least I know now I'm not completely blind or even alone and if there is no alternative, so be it.

In light of that fact, I am considering just blacklisting packages I prefer not update at all rather than leaving them active just in case they have a security patch, and doing a periodic spot check on them, leaving kernel/critical packages to do their thing automatically.

As to your question, addled by experience I know the wizards you speak of, I used to have my own tower though not in the Linux world admittedly. I'd be the first to admit though that I am somewhat jaded/disillusioned and never really completely trust other wizards.

Therein lies the danger of staring into the abyss ... if you stare long enough, it stares back.

[gittiest personITW]

Thanks for the replies, much appreciated

At least I know now I'm not completely blind or even alone and if there is no alternative, so be it.

In light of that fact, I am considering just blacklisting packages I prefer not update at all rather than leaving them active just in case they have a security patch, and doing a periodic spot check on them, leaving kernel/critical packages to do their thing automatically.

As to your question, addled by experience I know the wizards you speak of, I used to have my own tower though not in the Linux world admittedly. I'd be the first to admit though that I am somewhat jaded/disillusioned and never really completely trust other wizards.

Therein lies the danger of staring into the abyss ... if you stare long enough, it stares back.

Nice one.

I'd be more tempted though to trust these ones than those ones, if you know what I mean.

[SiGiS]

Nice one.

I'd be more tempted though to trust these ones than those ones, if you know what I mean.

Indeed, very true

[mikeflan]

I am considering just blacklisting packages I prefer not update at all

That is not recommended. I hope you don't regret it later.

[pdc_2]

we have tried to add as few extras to the Mint; as we can manage; as a strategy to keeping things simple; then we just dutifully update whatever comes in; that has seemed fine; for quite a few years; I do think there was a temporary pulseaudio blip some years ago; but the howls from so many meant it was quickly resolved; as with others, I would just suggest keeping all updated; saves too much thinking;

[SiGiS]

we have tried to add as few extras to the Mint; as we can manage; as a strategy to keeping things simple; then we just dutifully update whatever comes in; that has seemed fine; for quite a few years; I do think there was a temporary pulseaudio blip some years ago; but the howls from so many meant it was quickly resolved; as with others, I would just suggest keeping all updated; saves too much thinking;

Much appreciated I had issues with pulseaudio at one stage, but couldn't say whether it was due to the "blip" you are talking about, or missing some config edit/setting.

I do believe there was a lot of concern over Linux users not updating frequently enough at one stage, which somewhat drove the initiative? Which is understandable. The transparency of patches is at least very refreshing and that's something you hardly ever have control over on other systems, as well as the fact that patching in the earlier years required rather, not so insignificant thinking/knowledge in order to keep all the dependency's in line and to resolve any issues, which has improved with leaps and bounds.

Desktop Linux user friendliness has definitely come a long way.