Bug#924554: Bug#928108: Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Hi Bálint, On 27-05-2019 22:53, Bálint Réczey wrote: > The funny thing is that when Buster becomes stable and security > updates start flowing the autopkgtest will pass again. Would the test start failing again around the bullseye release period? > I can upload them if you would like to see them in Buster, but they > are not absolutely necessary, IMO. Yes, please. We value working autopkgtests quite a bit. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Hi Paul, Paul Gevers ezt írta (időpont: 2019. máj. 23., Cs, 8:59): > > Hi Bálint, > > On 22-05-2019 17:07, Bálint Réczey wrote: > >> Please remove the moreinfo tag when the package built successfully. > > > > Done, with the version number adjusted. The failing autopkgtest is not > > related to this change. > > Unblocked, thanks. However, can you explain why the autopkgtests started > failing and do you expect it to keep failing? If the fix is obvious and > easily and only in the debian/tests/ directory, I'd like to have it, > such that the unattended-upgrades autopkgtest remains working during the > stable release time. The funny thing is that when Buster becomes stable and security updates start flowing the autopkgtest will pass again. I've prepared the fixes in https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-upgrades/pull/201 for the release process related corner cases. I can upload them if you would like to see them in Buster, but they are not absolutely necessary, IMO. Cheers, Balint > > Paul >
Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Hi Bálint, On 23-05-2019 08:59, Paul Gevers wrote: > Unblocked, thanks. However, can you explain why the autopkgtests started > failing and do you expect it to keep failing? If the fix is obvious and > easily and only in the debian/tests/ directory, I'd like to have it, > such that the unattended-upgrades autopkgtest remains working during the > stable release time. Apparently the test doesn't fail reproducible. The latest migration-reference run was successful, so your package is now blocked due to autopkgtest regression. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#928108: Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Hi Bálint, On 22-05-2019 17:07, Bálint Réczey wrote: >> Please remove the moreinfo tag when the package built successfully. > > Done, with the version number adjusted. The failing autopkgtest is not > related to this change. Unblocked, thanks. However, can you explain why the autopkgtests started failing and do you expect it to keep failing? If the fix is obvious and easily and only in the debian/tests/ directory, I'd like to have it, such that the unattended-upgrades autopkgtest remains working during the stable release time. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Control: retitle -1 unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.11.1 Hi Paul, Paul Gevers ezt írta (időpont: 2019. máj. 21., K, 21:06): > > Control: tags -1 confirmed moreinfo > > Hi Bálint, > > On 21-05-2019 09:58, Bálint Réczey wrote: ... > > Please find the the patch attached for cherry-picking only the fix for > > #924554. If you prefer adding only this fix to Buster I will upload > > this change to unstable then it can be let to testing. > > You can go ahead with that, except I prefer not to have the +deb10u1 > version as that looks weird for an unstable upload. Seem like you could > use 1.11.1 or something along those lines. > > Please remove the moreinfo tag when the package built successfully. Done, with the version number adjusted. The failing autopkgtest is not related to this change. Cheers, Balint
Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Control: tags -1 confirmed moreinfo Hi Bálint, On 21-05-2019 09:58, Bálint Réczey wrote: > OK, I understand. I hoped Release Team could take a look at the > referenced bugs and list the ones they would see important enough to > include in Buster. IMO letting 1.12 in would come with the least > amount of risk and would fix many issues already fixed in Ubuntu, but > I see that there is other important work to be done for the release, > too. Thanks for understanding. > Please find the the patch attached for cherry-picking only the fix for > #924554. If you prefer adding only this fix to Buster I will upload > this change to unstable then it can be let to testing. You can go ahead with that, except I prefer not to have the +deb10u1 version as that looks weird for an unstable upload. Seem like you could use 1.11.1 or something along those lines. Please remove the moreinfo tag when the package built successfully. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Hi Paul,
Paul Gevers ezt írta (időpont: 2019. máj. 20., H, 20:38):
>
> Hi Jan, Bálint,
>
> On 20-05-2019 09:02, Jan Wagner wrote:
> > Am 12.05.19 um 12:41 schrieb Jan Wagner:
> >>>* Skip sending email when no package had to be installed, upgraded
> >> or removed
> >>> (LP: #1821103) (Closes: #924554)
> >> I'm still considering this as a regression and thus RC.
> >
> > DO we need to change severity to RC to get that fixed in buster?!?
> >
> > Anyway, any statement from your side would be a beginning.
>
> Sorry. The amount of changes that you propose to review is intimidating.
> If you can prepare a targeted fix, that would be *much* appreciated by
> us and much more likely end in a successful review. The sentence "If
> omitting some of the fixes is desired please state which ones can go in
> and which ones can't" probably achieved the opposite of what was wanted.
> It's hard for us to make that call.
OK, I understand. I hoped Release Team could take a look at the
referenced bugs and list the ones they would see important enough to
include in Buster. IMO letting 1.12 in would come with the least
amount of risk and would fix many issues already fixed in Ubuntu, but
I see that there is other important work to be done for the release,
too.
Please find the the patch attached for cherry-picking only the fix for
#924554. If you prefer adding only this fix to Buster I will upload
this change to unstable then it can be let to testing.
Cheers,
Balint
> Paul
>
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 683fc19c..3cdce722 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+unattended-upgrades (1.11+deb10u1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Skip sending email when no package had to be installed, upgraded or removed
+(LP: #1821103) (Closes: #924554)
+
+ -- Balint Reczey Tue, 21 May 2019 09:37:03 +0200
+
unattended-upgrades (1.11) unstable; urgency=medium
* Use defaults in unattended-upgrades.service when the APT configuration is
diff --git a/debian/tests/common-functions b/debian/tests/common-functions
index 63f01389..c483dcc4 100644
--- a/debian/tests/common-functions
+++ b/debian/tests/common-functions
@@ -132,5 +132,20 @@ run_u_u() {
chroot_exec "$chroot_dir" apt-mark showmanual | diff "$chroot_dir/tmp/manual" -
chroot_exec "$chroot_dir" perl -MMIME::QuotedPrint -pe '$_=MIME::QuotedPrint::decode($_);' /var/mail/mail
+printf "Checking that no email is sent when nothing had to be done..."
+if ! chroot_exec "$chroot_dir" perl -MMIME::QuotedPrint -pe '$_=MIME::QuotedPrint::decode($_);' /var/mail/mail | grep -q "unattended and no pending auto-removals"; then
+echo "OK"
+else
+echo "FAILED, see last email above"
+fi
+
+printf "Checking that no packages can be upgraded or auto-removed..."
+if tail -n 1 "$chroot_dir/var/log/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrades.log" | grep -q "No packages found that can be upgraded unattended and no pending auto-removals"; then
+echo "OK."
+else
+echo "Failed:"
+cat "$chroot_dir/var/log/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrades.log"
+fi
+
rm "$chroot_dir/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/51unattended-upgrades-dpkg-frontend-check"
}
diff --git a/unattended-upgrade b/unattended-upgrade
index 65795a2d..3773a34b 100755
--- a/unattended-upgrade
+++ b/unattended-upgrade
@@ -1119,6 +1119,9 @@ def send_summary_mail(pkgs, # type: List[str]
if (res and apt_pkg.config.find_b(
"Unattended-Upgrade::MailOnlyOnError", False)):
return
+# if the run was successful but nothing had to be done skip sending email
+if (res and not pkgs and not pkgs_kept_back and not pkgs_removed):
+return
# Check if reboot-required flag is present
reboot_flag_str = _(
"[reboot required]") if os.path.isfile(REBOOT_REQUIRED_FILE) else ""
Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Hi Jan, Bálint, On 20-05-2019 09:02, Jan Wagner wrote: > Am 12.05.19 um 12:41 schrieb Jan Wagner: >>>* Skip sending email when no package had to be installed, upgraded >> or removed >>> (LP: #1821103) (Closes: #924554) >> I'm still considering this as a regression and thus RC. > > DO we need to change severity to RC to get that fixed in buster?!? > > Anyway, any statement from your side would be a beginning. Sorry. The amount of changes that you propose to review is intimidating. If you can prepare a targeted fix, that would be *much* appreciated by us and much more likely end in a successful review. The sentence "If omitting some of the fixes is desired please state which ones can go in and which ones can't" probably achieved the opposite of what was wanted. It's hard for us to make that call. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Dear release team, Am 12.05.19 um 12:41 schrieb Jan Wagner: >>* Skip sending email when no package had to be installed, upgraded > or removed >> (LP: #1821103) (Closes: #924554) > I'm still considering this as a regression and thus RC. DO we need to change severity to RC to get that fixed in buster?!? Anyway, any statement from your side would be a beginning. Sigh, Jan. -- Never write mail to , you have been warned! -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GIT d-- s+: a C+++ UL P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M+ V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI D+ G++ e++ h r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#924554: Bug#928108: unblock: unattended-upgrades/1.12 ?
Dear Release Team, Am 28.04.19 um 12:57 schrieb Bálint Réczey: > Unattended-upgrades 1.12 contains almost only fixes for bugs holding > back security updates or for regressions. > I'm wondering if you would let it in Buster in full or just with > omitting parts of the fixes. If omitting some of the fixes is desired > please state which ones can go in and which ones can't. did you have time to look into this yet? >* Skip sending email when no package had to be installed, upgraded or removed > (LP: #1821103) (Closes: #924554) I'm still considering this as a regression and thus RC. Many thanks, Jan. -- Never write mail to , you have been warned! -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GIT d-- s+: a C+++ UL P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M+ V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI D+ G++ e++ h r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
