Package: unattended-upgrades Version: 0.76 Severity: important Hi!
I believe this is related to the info I sent to #645382 and #625847, on this situation, where there are some packages not upgradable for whatever reason there may be, the upgradable packages are not being upgraded. Please note that this is a report from a machine running version 0.76 of unattended-upgrades on squeeze,I don't think that is making any difference here, but just in case. I had this couple of machines running stable with some packages from unstable or manually installed that are not upgradable (see previous report to the bugreports I named before for more info) and we had a couple of stable upgrades lately that I just realised now that are not being applied. I believe the problem here is that we have the problem with the other packages which "cannot" be upgraded and unattended-upgrades doesn't disociate the case of the upgradable packages from the one of unupgradable packages, in fact it also tells the upgradable packages are not upgradable. I have just tested now on one of the servers to remove the sid repository from apt, this way unattended-upgrades won't say anything about the packages he cannot upgrade and rerun unattended-upgrades, that way the upgrades from stable got upgraded without any problem. So, we have a couple of problems here, and loos to me as if this second one is consequence of the first one and thus fixing the first one will also fix this one. I'm saying this because on the 23th raptor lib got upgraded and we were already on that state on which some packages were not upgradable. Here goes the log for libraptor1: 2012-03-23 06:40:34,685 INFO Initial blacklisted packages: amule-common amule-daemon asterisk asterisk-config asterisk-modules libwxbase2.8-0 2012-03-23 06:40:34,694 INFO Starting unattended upgrades script 2012-03-23 06:40:34,695 INFO Allowed origins are: ['o=Debian,n=squeeze', 'o=Debian,n=squeeze,l=Debian-Security'] 2012-03-23 06:40:46,864 WARNING package 'amule-daemon' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-23 06:40:51,192 WARNING package 'asterisk' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-23 06:40:59,695 WARNING package 'asterisk-modules' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-23 06:41:05,574 WARNING package 'libpng12-0' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-23 06:41:13,186 WARNING package 'libwxbase2.8-0' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-23 06:41:24,928 INFO Packages that are upgraded: libraptor1 2012-03-23 06:41:24,995 INFO Writing dpkg log to '/var/log/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrades-dpkg_2012-03-23_06:41:24.976280.log' 2012-03-23 06:41:39,074 INFO All upgrades installed I'm pasting here the log for the last run where it is marking libtasn1 and libpng12 as not upgradable: 2012-03-25 06:49:11,013 INFO Initial blacklisted packages: amule-common amule-daemon asterisk asterisk-config asterisk-modules libwxbase2.8-0 2012-03-25 06:49:11,028 INFO Starting unattended upgrades script 2012-03-25 06:49:11,029 INFO Allowed origins are: ['o=Debian,n=squeeze', 'o=Debian,n=squeeze,l=Debian-Security'] 2012-03-25 06:49:23,193 WARNING package 'amule-daemon' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-25 06:49:27,403 WARNING package 'asterisk' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-25 06:49:35,889 WARNING package 'asterisk-modules' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-25 06:49:41,517 WARNING package 'libpng12-0' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-25 06:49:45,854 WARNING package 'libtasn1-3' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-25 06:49:50,424 WARNING package 'libwxbase2.8-0' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-25 06:49:58,731 INFO Packages that are upgraded: Right now if I run an upgrade it will upgrade to apply security fixes: vip:~# apt-get upgrade --download-only Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages have been kept back: amule-common amule-daemon asterisk asterisk-config asterisk-modules libwxbase2.8-0 The following packages will be upgraded: libpng12-0 libtasn1-3 2 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded. Need to get 238 kB of archives. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Get:1 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main libtasn1-3 i386 2.7-1+squeeze+1 [61.6 kB] Get:2 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main libpng12-0 i386 1.2.44-1+squeeze3 [176 kB] Fetched 238 kB in 0s (321 kB/s) Download complete and in download only mode But if I try to go further using a dist-upgrade it will result in removed packages due to pinning (I have APT::Default-Release "stable";) note however that it will upgrade the tasn and png libs from stable's security, which is what I have allowed unattended-upgrades to do and is refusing to do. vip:~# apt-get dist-upgrade --download-only Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Calculating upgrade... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: amule-daemon asterisk asterisk-prompt-es The following packages have been kept back: asterisk-modules libwxbase2.8-0 The following packages will be upgraded: amule-common asterisk-config libpng12-0 libtasn1-3 4 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 2 not upgraded. Need to get 238 kB/3276 kB of archives. After this operation, 9948 kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Get:1 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main libtasn1-3 i386 2.7-1+squeeze+1 [61.6 kB] Get:2 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main libpng12-0 i386 1.2.44-1+squeeze3 [176 kB] Fetched 238 kB in 0s (289 kB/s) Download complete and in download only mode I have removed APT::Default-Release from my apt.conf file and found that both libtasn1-3 and libpng12-0 have new packages on sid, while libraptor1 doesn't and this is what is making the difference here. Looks like, even though I have a Default-Release, unattended-upgrades is considering the packages of the libs from unstable instead of those from stable security (note that I don't have unstable on my allowed origins for unattended-upgrades but I do have squeeze and squeeze security). In fact, on the other machine removing sid from apt.conf made unattended-upgrades upgrade the libs. I'm mostly positive here that the weird packages from unstable are the ones making unattended-upgrades go wrong here, in fact, I'm going to edit their version numbers on /var/lib/dpkg/status... ok, I have simulated higher than unstable versions on the packages that were to be upgraded from unstable without touching the libtasn and libpng ones I also removed the blacklisting I used to have for the libs from unstable so that nothing was blacklisted and then rerun unattended-upgrades. To my surprise it has failed to upgrade the two libs, here is what a --debug showed: 2012-03-25 11:11:38,981 INFO Initial blacklisted packages: 2012-03-25 11:11:38,983 INFO Starting unattended upgrades script 2012-03-25 11:11:38,984 INFO Allowed origins are: ['o=Debian,n=squeeze', 'o=Debian,n=squeeze,l=Debian-Security'] 2012-03-25 11:11:42,107 DEBUG adjusting candidate version: '<Version: package:'libpng12-0' version:'1.2.47-1'>' 2012-03-25 11:11:42,388 DEBUG adjusting candidate version: '<Version: package:'libtasn1-3' version:'2.11-1'>' 2012-03-25 11:11:47,956 DEBUG Checking: libpng12-0 (["<Origin component:'main' archive:'testing' origin:'Debian' label:'Debian' site:'' isTrusted:True>"]) 2012-03-25 11:11:48,428 WARNING package 'libpng12-0' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-25 11:11:50,976 DEBUG adjusting candidate version: '<Version: package:'libpng12-0' version:'1.2.47-1'>' 2012-03-25 11:11:51,155 DEBUG adjusting candidate version: '<Version: package:'libtasn1-3' version:'2.11-1'>' 2012-03-25 11:11:52,314 DEBUG Checking: libtasn1-3 (["<Origin component:'main' archive:'testing' origin:'Debian' label:'Debian' site:'' isTrusted:True>"]) 2012-03-25 11:11:52,812 WARNING package 'libtasn1-3' upgradable but fails to be marked for upgrade (E:Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.) 2012-03-25 11:11:55,338 DEBUG adjusting candidate version: '<Version: package:'libpng12-0' version:'1.2.47-1'>' 2012-03-25 11:11:55,517 DEBUG adjusting candidate version: '<Version: package:'libtasn1-3' version:'2.11-1'>' 2012-03-25 11:11:57,509 DEBUG pkgs that look like they should be upgraded: 2012-03-25 11:11:57,544 DEBUG blacklist: [] 2012-03-25 11:11:57,545 DEBUG InstCount=0 DelCount=0 BrokenCout=0 2012-03-25 11:11:57,546 INFO Packages that are upgraded: 2012-03-25 11:11:57,547 DEBUG Sending mail with '/var/log/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrades-dpkg_2012-03-25_11:11:57.547018.log' to 'root@localhost' 2012-03-25 11:11:57,634 DEBUG mail returned: 0 Of course an apt-get upgrade would upgrade it without problems. I started writing this with priority important as I thought this problem was only caused because of the mixture of packages, but now I see that if you happen to have a newer distro on the sources list and selected an older default distro on apt.conf it is not going to upgrade the packages, while I know that the version in stable would do this. So the problem is bigger than I thought and seems also a regresion, so I'm thinking that maybe this should have a bigger priority :-? As always, if you need more info or tests, just tell me. Regards. -- System Information: Debian Release: 6.0.4 APT prefers stable APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.1.0 Locale: LANG=gl_ES.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=gl_ES.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages unattended-upgrades depends on: ii apt 0.8.10.3+squeeze1 Advanced front-end for dpkg ii apt-utils 0.8.10.3+squeeze1 APT utility programs ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.36.1 Debian configuration management sy ii lsb-release 3.2-23.2squeeze1 Linux Standard Base version report ii python 2.6.6-3+squeeze6 interactive high-level object-orie ii python-apt 0.7.100.1+squeeze1 Python interface to libapt-pkg ii ucf 3.0025+nmu1 Update Configuration File: preserv unattended-upgrades recommends no packages. Versions of packages unattended-upgrades suggests: ii bsd-mailx 8.1.2-0.20100314cvs-1 simple mail user agent -- Configuration Files: /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/50unattended-upgrades changed: APT::Periodic::AutocleanInterval "5"; // Automatically upgrade packages from these origin patterns Unattended-Upgrade::Origins-Pattern { // Codename based matching: // This will follow the migration of a release through different // archives (e.g. from testing to stable and later oldstable). "o=Debian,n=squeeze"; // "o=Debian,n=squeeze-updates"; // "o=Debian,n=squeeze-proposed-updates"; "o=Debian,n=squeeze,l=Debian-Security"; // Archive or Suite based matching: // Note that this will silently match a different release after // migration to the specified archive (e.g. testing becomes the // new stable). // "o=Debian,a=stable"; // "o=Debian,a=stable-updates"; // "o=Debian,a=proposed-updates"; // "origin=Debian,archive=stable,label=Debian-Security"; }; // List of packages to not update Unattended-Upgrade::Package-Blacklist { "amule-common"; "amule-daemon"; "asterisk"; "asterisk-config"; "asterisk-modules"; "libwxbase2.8-0"; // "vim"; // "libc6"; // "libc6-dev"; // "libc6-i686"; }; // This option allows you to control if on a unclean dpkg exit // unattended-upgrades will automatically run // dpkg --force-confold --configure -a // The default is true, to ensure updates keep getting installed //Unattended-Upgrade::AutoFixInterruptedDpkg "false"; // Split the upgrade into the smallest possible chunks so that // they can be interrupted with SIGUSR1. This makes the upgrade // a bit slower but it has the benefit that shutdown while a upgrade // is running is possible (with a small delay) //Unattended-Upgrade::MinimalSteps "true"; // Install all unattended-upgrades when the machine is shuting down // instead of doing it in the background while the machine is running // This will (obviously) make shutdown slower //Unattended-Upgrade::InstallOnShutdown "true"; // Send email to this address for problems or packages upgrades // If empty or unset then no email is sent, make sure that you // have a working mail setup on your system. A package that provides // 'mailx' must be installed. Unattended-Upgrade::Mail "root@localhost"; // Set this value to "true" to get emails only on errors. Default // is to always send a mail if Unattended-Upgrade::Mail is set //Unattended-Upgrade::MailOnlyOnError "true"; // Do automatic removal of new unused dependencies after the upgrade // (equivalent to apt-get autoremove) //Unattended-Upgrade::Remove-Unused-Dependencies "false"; // Automatically reboot *WITHOUT CONFIRMATION* if a // the file /var/run/reboot-required is found after the upgrade Unattended-Upgrade::Automatic-Reboot "true"; // Use apt bandwidth limit feature, this example limits the download // speed to 70kb/sec //Acquire::http::Dl-Limit "70"; -- debconf information: * unattended-upgrades/enable_auto_updates: true -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
