On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:26:24PM +0000, Iain Nicol wrote:
> Package: unattended-upgrades
> Version: 0.72.3
> Severity: minor
Thanks for your bugreport and sorry for the slow reply. I was on
vacation.
> 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.
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
Thanks,
Michael
> -- 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 [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
