On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@canonical.com> wrote: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended- > upgrades/+bug/1714019/+attachment/4942097/+files/unattended- > upgrades_0.93.1ubuntu8-to-0.96ubuntu1.patch appears to be a reversed > patch, and doesn't have a changelog entry for 0.96ubuntu1.
I have fixed the patch it was reversed indeed, but contains the changelog, just not at the beginning like it is usual for diffs. > > Which parts of this change is it that you believe violate feature freeze > and require an FFe? (Bugfixes do not require an FFe.) There are some changes which don't fix bugs but can be seen as improvements, like: * Update the signal used to SIGTERM in the documentation * Fix incorrect example for Update-Days. * add pep484 type hints ... I also prefer being cautious and asking for such permissions even they may not be strictly required. > > If an FFe is required for the merge, why do a merge rather than cherry- > picking of the specific bugfix changes? The part which would be cherry-picked is like ~90% of the changes if we want to have u-u be in a reasonably good shape in Ubuntu and having the big delta was painful enough to maintain already. I aimed at having a sync but dropping/integrating LP: #1649709 needs more discussion at least with infinity, it seems. See: https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2017/08/01/%23ubuntu-devel.html , starting from 11:06 > > >From NEWS.Debian, I understand that a key change is to turn on the > minimal steps handling by default. What is the impact of this change on > the time it takes to do a typical update? Are we in any way increasing I have not tested the additional time because without enabling minimal steps u-u can't be stopped gracefully after it started the actual upgrade. Thus i saw no decision point here. It is worth measuring the impact and checking if we can speed u-u up in that area, but IMO this optimization should not delay the acceptance of this upload. > the risk of an unclean shutdown due to a laptop running out of battery > during the upgrade, where this wouldn't have happened if we weren't > doing minimal steps? When InstallOnShutdown not set apt-daily-upgrade.service does not run u-u when running on battery: http://sources.debian.net/src/apt/1.5%7Ebeta2/debian/apt-daily-upgrade.service/#L4 When InstallOnShutdown is set this is a valid concern and thank you for raising it. I've just prepared a fix to mitigate this risk: https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-upgrades/pull/75/commits/fd65bb54556624aacac5212d9d21e3a66df251c3 > > debian/postinst changes the minimum version at which installinit upgrade > handling is applied, and will be reapplied to systems which have the > existing artful package installed. Could this be a problem? E.g., does > this forcibly override the user's preference on upgrade if they have > disabled the service in systemd? I have not changed the version check compared to 0.93.1ubuntu8, thus I see no problem in this area related to FFe. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1714019 Title: Please merge unattended-upgrades 0.96 (main) from Debian unstable (main) To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended-upgrades/+bug/1714019/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
