On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 08:51:15AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On 04/28/2011 02:36 AM, Michael Vogt wrote: > >The code in unattended-upgrades should catch conffile changes like > >this, so this looks like you hit a bug in that detection. Or the [..] > I ultimately sent it here because I don't think that a security > patch should be attempting to modify my config files anyway. > Security updates should just install automatically with minimal > impact on the system. I can't recall the last time I've had one > that does this. Do you know if it was necessary?
I agree, I think conffile changes like this should be avoided if possible. I looked at the diff for the conffile prompt and it appears its not really needed but I'm not familiar enough with the package to properly judge. Still, u-n should be able to handle it :) > That said, u-a didn't do a very intelligent thing here either. I pushed a fix for the bug into: bzr get http://bzr.debian.org/apt/unattended-upgrades/debian-squeeze and prepared a update to stable. The asterisk package will now be held back from the upgrade and unattended-upgrades warns about that in its logfile and in the mail that is send out (as expected). It does not print anything to stdout though so it will not trigger cron mails. This was part of the original design, but thinking further about it I wonder if it should, just to make sure that the users are aware of it (i.e. I wonder if people bother checking the logs/mails every now and then). Cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
