Hi Daniel,
On 2024-05-08 19:25, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
thanks for taking care about this in general and this one:
> Thanks, i've reported this part upstream:
> https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/sequoia-chameleon-gnupg/-/issues/74
in particular.
Should I open another issue about PINENTRY_USER_DATA not being
forwarded to the pinentry when using the gpg from package gpg-sq/
gpg-from-sq? If yes, on what repository exactly?
With respect to your packaging questions:
> gpg-sq doesn't install any diversions to my knowledge. the only
> diversions that might be installed are in gpg-from-sq or gpgv-from-sq.
You are right here, I've been sloppy in my wording.
> If those packages were on your system, then they could indeed have
> installed a diversion. But nothing explicitly depends on those packages
> (try running "apt rdepends gpg{,v}-from-sq") so i'm not sure how they
> got installed during an upgrade.
gpg-from-sq indeed was on my system, and I think it got there because
of some of aptitude's proposals to resolve broken references.
> Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the packages use the
> Provides field? If you didn't deliberately install either of the
> *-from-sq packages, and they ended up on your system, is there some way
> that you can replicate the upgrade path? I'd like to understand that
> better, as i don't think it should have happened by accident.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can explain that fully, but I can try
to provide some more information. (Even if I'm now rather sure that
this should not affect too many other users ...)
As mentioned before, this all happened in the heat of the t64 upgrade
on a Debian testing system. For a month or so I would have to wait
until the daily unattended upgrade failed to completely do its job,
then I would use aptitude to manually handle the remaining packages
in a way that wouldn't deinstall anything valuable. Meaning: In the
aptitude curses front-end I would press "+" on the "Upgradable
Packages" and then cycle through aptitude's proposal on how to
resolve the packages that unattended upgrade (and aptitude) would not
upgrade automatically.
I have attached the interesting bits for that day (2024-05-07) from
my unattended upgrade logs and from the aptitude log below. If you
think there could be more treasures hidden in my logs (nothing special
configured on my system), please let me know.
> Perhaps there is some signal either package can give to apt to help it
> avoid that problem in the future?
This would be a question for the apt (or aptitude) folks, I think,
but as mentioned above this was probably a rather special case, so
not really worth further effort ...
unattended-upgrades.log
2024-05-07 10:28:56,541 INFO Starting unattended upgrades script
2024-05-07 10:28:56,542 INFO Allowed origins are:
origin=Debian,archive=testing,label=Debian
2024-05-07 10:28:56,542 INFO Initial blacklist:
2024-05-07 10:28:56,542 INFO Initial whitelist (not strict):
2024-05-07 10:29:09,972 INFO Packages that will be upgraded: acl e2fsprogs
elpa-org fwupd gir1.2-lightdm-1 groff-base gstreamer1.0-plugins-base libacl1
libboost-iostreams1.83.0 libboost-locale1.83.0 libboost-thread1.83.0 libc-bin
libc-dev-bin libc-l10n libc6 libc6-dev libcairo-gobject2 libcairo2 libcom-err2
libext2fs2t64 libfftw3-double3 libfftw3-single3 libfwupd2
libgstreamer-plugins-base1.0-0 liblightdm-gobject-1-0 libp11-kit0
libpolkit-agent-1-0 libpolkit-gobject-1-0 libsnappy1v5 libsqlite3-0 libss2
libudisks2-0 lightdm locales logsave org-mode-doc pkexec policykit-1 polkitd
postfix python-apt-common python3-apt rsyslog sqlite3 udisks2
2024-05-07 10:29:09,973 INFO Writing dpkg log to
/var/log/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrades-dpkg.log
2024-05-07 10:29:46,076 INFO All upgrades installed
2024-05-07 10:29:46,269 INFO Package dirmngr is kept back because a related
package is kept back or due to local apt_preferences(5).
2024-05-07 10:29:46,278 INFO Package gnupg is kept back because a related
package is kept back or due to local apt_preferences(5).
2024-05-07 10:29:46,278 INFO Package gnupg-l10n is kept back because a related
package is kept back or due to local apt_preferences(5).
2024-05-07 10:29:46,278 INFO Package gnupg-utils is kept back because a related
package is kept back or due to local apt_preferences(5).
2024-05-07 10:29:46,282 INFO Package gpg is kept back because a related package
is kept back or due to local apt_preferences(5).
2024-05-07 10:29:46,282 INFO Package gpg-agent is kept back because a related
package is kept back or due to local apt_preferences(5).
2024-05-07 10:29:46,283 INFO Package gpg-wks-client is kept back because a
related package is kept back or due to local apt_preferences(5).
2024-05-07 10:29:46,283 INFO Package gpg-wks-server is kept back because a
related package is kept back or due to local apt_preferences(5).
2024-05-07 10:29:46,283 INFO Package gpgconf is kept back because
