On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 06:51:14PM +0100, Iain Nicol wrote: > On 2011-09-19, Michael Vogt wrote: [..] > > 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.
Ups, indeed, that is rather silly, fixed in bzr. > 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 for testing this! 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! Cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
