On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 13:22 -0800, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > I cannot reproduce this. Is it possible that sa-update had previously > been run on the affected host, but wasn't running on an ongoing basis? > You'd have been running with a stale set of updates if that was the > case, and these old updates would override the packaged rules.
I guess it is possible but it seems unlikely. CRON=0 was set so it definitely didn't have sa-update running on an ongoing basis. Is there any way to tell what happened after the fact? Personally I wonder why sa-update isn't the default when network is available, have you considered doing that, maybe for stretch? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
