On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:49:36PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt ansgar at debian.org writes:
Please be aware that --force-yes makes apt ignore invalid signatures for
Ouch.
Oh, how disingenuous these apt developers are!
I wonder, what got you: The friendly, very peaceful
Ansgar Burchardt ansgar at debian.org writes:
Please be aware that --force-yes makes apt ignore invalid signatures for
Ouch.
What is the equivalent of --force-yes with*out* --allow-unauthenticated,
then? This scenario (scheduled non-interactive upgrades) is common…
Thanks,
//mirabilos
]] David Kalnischkies
It is on my TODO list to drop the --force-yes flag and replace it with
specialised --allow-* flags 'just' to force users to acknowledge what
it is they are saying yes to. Somehow most people are way more willing
to add --allow-everything than --allow-prostate-exam …
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 12:09:37PM +0200, Alexander Thomas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org wrote:
On 06/08/2015 10:29 AM, Alexander Thomas wrote:
We
falsely assumed that setting DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive
APT_LISTCHANGES_FRONTEND=none, and
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:14 PM, David Kalnischkies
da...@kalnischkies.de wrote:
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 12:09:37PM +0200, Alexander Thomas wrote:
I know, but this is a closed system and nothing is pulled in from
external repositories during this automated update. The stuff that is
included in
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:47:50 +0200
Alexander Thomas alexander.thomas+d...@esaturnus.com wrote:
[...]
--force-yes e.g. also disables the 'Do as I say' prompt before
destroying your system^W^W^Wremoving (pseudo) essential packages.
It is on my TODO list to drop the --force-yes flag and
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Konstantin Khomoutov
flatw...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:25:21 +0200
Alexander Thomas alexander.thomas+d...@esaturnus.com wrote:
[...]
That would be an option, but it might still cause the same problem of
apt-get hanging as we currently
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
On 06/08/2015 10:29 AM, Alexander Thomas wrote:
We
falsely assumed that setting DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive
APT_LISTCHANGES_FRONTEND=none, and using the -y and --force-yes
options, would never invoke
Hi,
On 06/08/2015 10:29 AM, Alexander Thomas wrote:
We
falsely assumed that setting DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive
APT_LISTCHANGES_FRONTEND=none, and using the -y and --force-yes
options, would never invoke terminal-related code.
Please be aware that --force-yes makes apt ignore invalid
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Konstantin Khomoutov
flatw...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 17:26:21 +0200
Alexander Thomas alexander.thomas+d...@esaturnus.com wrote:
[...]
The long story:
We have a setup with multiple servers (running Wheezy). When booting,
the
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:25:21 +0200
Alexander Thomas alexander.thomas+d...@esaturnus.com wrote:
[...]
That would be an option, but it might still cause the same problem of
apt-get hanging as we currently experience when doing the update
before runlevel S.
We looked deeper into this and found
On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 17:26:21 +0200
Alexander Thomas alexander.thomas+d...@esaturnus.com wrote:
[...]
The long story:
We have a setup with multiple servers (running Wheezy). When booting,
the servers check whether updates are available on a master server. If
available, they are pulled in
The short question:
Is it acceptable to boot a server into runlevel 1, and then invoke
init 2 from an /etc/rc1.d script to interrupt the execution of any
further scripts in that runlevel and continue in RL2?
The long story:
We have a setup with multiple servers (running Wheezy). When booting,
13 matches
Mail list logo
