2012/4/26 Michael Vogt <m...@debian.org>: > This bugreport is interessting and I'm happy to implement the required > change to not send a mail if nothing changes. However I wonder if that > is what should be default?
Great. > I mean, it seems like its very interessting to know that a package did > *not* get upgraded (in some sense more interessting than if the > package got upgraded) because in the default configuration it means > there is a open security issue on the system. Maybe we could use the > idea from bug #652719 and add "U-A::Mail-If-Packages-on-Hold" (any > unify the options too) and the option would default to "true" for the > rational above (that it indicates a open security issue). > > What do you think? First, until now all notifications *are* disabled on default configuration. To get notifications the Sysadmin must explicitly set U-A::Mail or U-A::Mail-only-on-Error (and any future U-A::Mail* options). My advice is to not send any email in default configuration (keep the current behaviour). In this specific case, why would a package be on hold? 1) package cannot be upgraded without some confirmation [ok] 2) the package was blacklisted. This is an express request from Sysadmin that says "this package is special or critical, don't do anything without my supervision". Thus, the Sysadmin already knows about them — why send a notification? (that's why I still think this new configuration option is not necessary) 3) some other reason?! Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
