On Fri 30 Jun 2017 at 15:43:45 (-0400), Fungi4All wrote: > > From: wool...@eeg.ccf.org > > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 06:34:49PM +0200, Dejan Jocic wrote: > >> If you want to > >> prevent automatic upgrades and disable them, because you want to do it > >> manually like you are used to, you should edit file > >> /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades and change it from this: > >> > >> APT::Periodic::Update-Package-Lists "1"; > >> APT::Periodic::Unattended-Upgrade "1"; > >> > >> to this: > >> > >> APT::Periodic::Update-Package-Lists "0"; > >> APT::Periodic::Unattended-Upgrade "0"; > > Or you can just remove the unattended-upgrades package, right? > > If someone installed Stretch from scratch last week got the > unattended-upgrades > package but those who were running stretch for a while before it became > stable did not get it and have to install it. Would this be correct, because > I've had several updated packages since then. > I'm writing this from a different system so I can not go back and actually > check but I am wondering how it works security wise. I assume it runs > as a timed service through systemd and has admin privileges. > The question that sticks to mind, if the above assumptions are correct, > is how did this got to stable without really being advertised properly > through those running testing. I was under the impression that for > anything other than security-bug-fixes everything goes through the > unstable and testing first. This seems as something that appeared > behind us. An update of apt/synaptics/aptitude could have included > the option to consciously choose between auto or manual updates.
I'm not sure what this is all about; unattended-upgrades appears to have been maintained by the same person since the days of etch, a decade ago. What constitutes an advertisement, and how is the question posed as to whether updates are automatic or not? Cheers, David.
