MiyoLinux wrote:
Then I'd recommend putting the # back on the backports repo.

I can't remember if I put them back. Should it look like this:

# jessie-backports
#deb http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main
#deb-src http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main

or just this:

# jessie-backports
deb http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main
deb-src http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main

Another question, if I disable the backports then won't I not be offered an update on the new kernel when one is released?

Hi Ron! You can just leave the "deb" line uncommented (without the #). Unless you're planning on building something from source, you can put the # in front of the "deb-src" repos.

Sometimes I forget and give advice about my personal preferences. I never use backports myself, so I always leave them commented out.

As I said, unless you plan to build something from source, this is my recommendation for how it should look...

# jessie-backports
deb http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main
#deb-src http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main

If you plan to build from source, then leave it as...

# jessie-backports
deb http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main
deb-src http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main

Hope that helps!

MiyoLinux wrote:
Then I'd recommend putting the # back on the backports repo.

I can't remember if I put them back. Should it look like this:

# jessie-backports
#deb http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main
#deb-src http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main

or just this:

# jessie-backports
deb http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main
deb-src http://auto.mirror.devuan.org/merged jessie-backports main

Another question, if I disable the backports then won't I not be offered an update on the new kernel when one is released?

The CVE tracker has outlined the vulnerable and patched versions for a few months, and it looks like it hasn't changed.
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tra … -2017-5754

The only claims for invulnerability I've heard are hardware-level exceptions.

I wasn't offended lol.

I'm wondering where you found that statement from Debian.  It is my understanding that jessie-security solved this issue with a patched kernel, according to the CVE tracker.  Would you mind sharing?

Again, however, all i386/i686 kernels are still vulnerable, and the kpti patch developers have no intent to fix them in the near future.

I shared it in the link that I provided; however, that link no longer says what it said when I first posted it. The caveat from the link is...

In looking at the article today, it no longer says what I said that it said yesterday. Strange.

I'm wondering where you found that statement from Debian.  It is my understanding that jessie-security solved this issue with a patched kernel, according to the CVE tracker.  Would you mind sharing?

Again, however, all i386/i686 kernels are still vulnerable, and the kpti patch developers have no intent to fix them in the near future.

MiyoLinux wrote:

To my knowledge, there have been no patches for meltdown and spectre in kernel 3.16, because it's believed that 3.16 isn't affected...
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianSecurity/SpectreMeltdown

Are you joking?

Also, processor architecture matters just as much as kernel version.  Not only will i386 probably never be patched, but anything before 4.14.14 (on amd64) is just a backport, criticized for nebulous integrity.
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=135775

Sorry siva...I wasn't ignoring your post. I just saw it now for the first time...not sure how I missed it yesterday.

No, I wasn't joking. In trying not to muddy the waters, I was simply giving the "official" reason as to why 3.16 won't be patched as stated by Debian (in the link I provided)...since Devuan's kernel comes from Debian.

HOORAY to the one and only MIYO!!

Well...I'm not one to brag or anything, but I am pretty awesome and deserve all of the accolades and prominence that I'm given...'n stuff.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

linux-image-4.9.0-0.bpo.6-amd64:
  Depends: linux-base (>=4.3~) but 3.5 is to be installed

If I have the backport enabled, why am I not being offered an updated linux-base version?

Then I'd recommend putting the # back on the backports repo.

You can also specify backported packages with the "-t [repo]" option (eg, "-t jessie-backports").  Then you can keep the bpo repo uncommented and use only when needed.

sudo leafpad /etc/apt/sources.list

When the file opens, look at the bottom for the jessie-backports repo. If it's there, remove the # from in front of it. Then save and close the file.

Next, run this command in the terminal...

sudo apt-get update

Don't run an upgrade...close the terminal.

Now open Synaptic and search for...

linux image

Find the newer kernel and install it.

Then I'd recommend putting the # back on the backports repo.