Bug#647883: lists ${distro_codename}-updates but needs stable-updates
Package: unattended-upgrades
Version: 0.82
Followup-For: Bug #647883
Sam,
As another user of unattended-upgrades, thanks for your patch.
However, it can be marginally improved. By continuing to use
"${distro_codename}" instead of "stable", unattended-upgrades won't
break the moment stable becomes oldstable:
--- data/50unattended-upgrades.Debian 2013-09-02 07:12:48 +
+++ data/50unattended-upgrades.Debian 2014-02-23 23:06:25 +
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
// "o=Debian,a=stable";
// "o=Debian,a=stable-updates";
// "o=Debian,a=proposed-updates";
-"origin=Debian,archive=${distro_codename},label=Debian-Security";
+"origin=Debian,codename=${distro_codename},label=Debian-Security";
};
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#732251: nginx-extras fastcgi_cache and proxy_cache both trigger errors with the push module
Unfortunately this is slightly more severe than previously identified. The previously-linked logs show this: > 2013/12/15 18:42:31 [alert] 2889#0: cache manager process 2895 exited > with fatal code 2 and cannot be respawned In other words, the cache manager cannot run when nginx-extras is installed. Caching will appear to work, except that the cache will grow and grow until there's no more free space on the partition. Now suppose you have your fastcgi temp dir and fastcgi cache dir on the same partition, as recommended by upstream. At this point your server will start erroneously sending back zero-length HTTP responses, or similar. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#639840: unattended-upgrades: email falsely claims apache2 was kept back
Hi, Michael Vogt wrote: I commited it to bzr and it will be part of > the next upload, changelog: > > [ Iain Nicol ] > * unattended-upgrade: > - ensure pkgs_to_upgrade stays sorted and fix crash > > Let me know if that is accurate enough. Spot on. I did a sanity check that bzr head works, and it does for me, so please close this bug when you do that upload. > I added a __cmp__ function to my python-apt branch now Excellent, that's the real solution, isn't it. > (with a test ;) Heh. Cheers, -- Iain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#639840: unattended-upgrades: email falsely claims apache2 was kept back
Hi Michael,
> Thanks for testing [the unattended-upgrade change]! Indeed, when it
> re-evals the state it needs to update the pkgs_to_upgrade list as
> well. This is fixed in bzr now as well!
Thanks, but if you'll let me drag this bug out a little longer :-)...
There's a problem with the latest change: pkgs_to_upgrade was previously
a list of packages, not a list of pkgnames; if it contains a pkgname, an
exception is thrown when the string pkgs is built from it. There's a
trivial patch at the end of this email to fix this.
The other thing this patch does is fix a tiny regression: previously,
pkgs_to_upgrade was automatically sorted alphabetically, because the
cache iterator happens to iterates alphabetically. But because of the
new logic we now need something explicit. (And the explicit sort key
seems necessary.)
Cheers,
Iain
=== modified file 'unattended-upgrade'
--- unattended-upgrade 2011-09-28 09:00:42 +
+++ unattended-upgrade 2011-09-29 18:24:11 +
@@ -588,7 +588,7 @@
if (cache[pkgname].marked_install or
cache[pkgname].marked_upgrade):
pkgs_kept_back.remove(pkgname)
-pkgs_to_upgrade.append(pkgname)
+pkgs_to_upgrade.append(cache[pkgname])
else:
logging.debug("sanity check failed")
rewind_cache(cache, pkgs_to_upgrade)
@@ -600,6 +600,7 @@
pkgs_kept_back.append(pkg.name)
+pkgs_to_upgrade.sort(key=lambda p: p.name)
pkgs = "\n".join([pkg.name for pkg in pkgs_to_upgrade])
logging.debug("pkgs that look like they should be upgraded: %s" % pkgs)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#639840: unattended-upgrades: email falsely claims apache2 was kept back
On 2011-09-19, Michael Vogt wrote: > Thanks for your bugreport and sorry for the slow reply. I was on > vacation. Holidays are good :-). > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:26:24PM +0000, Iain Nicol wrote: >> unattended-upgrades ran as scheduled, and successfully >> security-upgraded all of the apache packages to +squeeze2. However, >> I found the email sent out by unattended-upgrades misleading [. . .] >> The ``kept back'' sentence made me think the apache2 package was not >> upgraded, but [it] was. Possibly this has something to do with >> apache2 being a metapackage (?). > Thanks a bunch for this very detailed description of the problem. This > is exactly the problem. I pushed a fix here: > http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/unattended-upgrades/ubuntu/revision/212 > > If you can still reproduce it, it would be nice if you could give it a > quick test run, diff is here: > http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/unattended-upgrades/ubuntu/diff/212 There's a typo in your change: "pkgs_kept_back.delete(pkgname)" doesn't work because there is no .delete method; it has to be .remove. After making that change to your change, I can confirm that unattended-upgrades no longer claims apache2 is held back: Packages that are upgraded: apache2-mpm-prefork apache2-utils apache2.2-bin apache2.2-common Package installation log: (Reading database ... 29027 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace apache2 2.2.16-6+squeeze1 (using .../apache2_2.2.16-6+squeeze3_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement apache2 ... Preparing to replace apache2-mpm-prefork 2.2.16-6+squeeze1 (using .../apache2-mpm-prefork_2.2.16-6+squeeze3_amd64.deb) ... Stopping web server: apache2 ... waiting . [...] Arguably, ideally apache2 would be listed in the "Packages that are upgraded" section. However, I appreciate that at least it no longer appears in a "kept back" section, and the full log does mention apache2 being upgraded. So, I'd be happy for this bug to be closed when that typo is fixed. Thanks, Iain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#639840: unattended-upgrades: email falsely claims apache2 was kept back
Package: unattended-upgrades
Version: 0.72.3
Severity: minor
Am running unattended-upgrades 0.72.3 from testing, but otherwise I'm
running squeeze.
I had apache2 installed:
aptitude install \
apache2{,-mpm-prefork,-utils,.2-bin,.2-common}=2.2.16-6+squeeze1
unattended-upgrades ran as scheduled, and successfully
security-upgraded all of the apache packages to +squeeze2. However, I
found the email sent out by unattended-upgrades misleading:
Unattended upgrade returned: True
Packages that are upgraded:
apache2-mpm-prefork apache2-utils apache2.2-bin apache2.2-common
Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
apache2
Package installation log:
(Reading database ... 28978 files and directories currently
installed.)
Preparing to replace apache2 2.2.16-6+squeeze1 (using
.../apache2_2.2.16-6+squeeze2_amd64.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement apache2 ...
[...]
The ``kept back'' sentence made me think the apache2 package was not
upgraded, but you can see in the next paragraph that it was. Possibly
this has something to do with apache2 being a metapackage (?).
I did a little debugging. apache2 was the first package
unattended-upgrades tried a pkg.mark_upgrade() on. However,
check_changes_for_sanity() returns False because ``pkg
'apache2-mpm-prefork' now marked delete'', and so "apache2" was added
to pkgs_kept_back. After and despite this, a pkg.mark_upgrade() on
one of the other apache packages causes apache2 to be upgraded.
I notice that before the upgrade is performed, cache.get_changes()
contains the apache2 pkg, and at this point apache2's .marked_upgrade
== True. I wonder if you think it would be reasonable to use such
information when looking at pkgs_kept_back when constructing the email
message.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.2
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.36.4-x1-64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.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 python2.6.6-3+squeeze6 interactive high-level object-orie
ii python-apt0.7.100.1+squeeze1 Python interface to libapt-pkg
ii ucf 3.0025+nmu1Update 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 [not included]
-- debconf information excluded
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
