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  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 [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

Reply via email to