> We'll eventually add phased updates to APT too, but we're not there yet.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to go out of your way to make it impossible for users to get the current version of a package by any means. The update-manager behavior is defensible, and even sensible; but there's enormous value to users still having the option to get an update through a different path if they need it. 2+ days, when a package that you need has been broken by a bad update, can be a very long time. I don't think tampering with APT that way as well is at all defensible, unless part of that work fixes the oversights in the original spec and allows users to override the behavior. For example, designating one machine as a canary at 0% into the phased update cycle, i.e. immediately; and the others as 80%+ into it. Anyway, the reason I'm here now is to confirm that update-manager just now offered the non-security updates from two days ago, so it's working as designed. (Although the communication of that behavior within the app itself could certainly be better: i.e. "not absolutely none"... :P) Forcing phased updates on APT itself though, in the absence of better controls, is a terrible idea. Please don't. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1842757 Title: update-manager does not follow settings and fails to update packages on time To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/1842757/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
