Hey Balint,

I think that the real issue is that the MOTD does not provide usefull
instructions. It suggests looking at
/var/log/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrades.log (which doesn't
tell us anything useful) instead of telling us to look at
/var/lib/unattended-upgrades/kept-back (which would tell us what we
need to know).

Martin-Éric

pe 13. maalisk. 2020 klo 17.07 Bálint Réczey ([email protected]) kirjoitti:
>
> Control: forcemerge 903874 -1
>
> Hi Martin-Éric,
>
> This seems very much like being a duplicate of 903874 for not having a
> detailed explanation in the log and otherwise the behaviour is as it
> should be.
>
> Cheers,
> Balint
>
> Bálint Réczey <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. febr.
> 2., V, 16:21):
> >
> > Hi Martin-Éric,
> >
> > Martin-Éric Racine <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont:
> > 2020. febr. 2., V, 16:06):
> > >
> > > su 2. helmik. 2020 klo 17.03 Bálint Réczey ([email protected]) 
> > > kirjoitti:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Martin-Éric Racine,
> > > >
> > > > Martin-Éric Racine <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont:
> > > > 2020. febr. 2., V, 15:54):
> > > > >
> > > > > su 2. helmik. 2020 klo 16.50 Bálint Réczey ([email protected]) 
> > > > > kirjoitti:
> > > > > > Martin-Éric Racine <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont:
> > > > > > 2020. febr. 2., V, 15:33):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Package: unattended-upgrades
> > > > > > > Version: 1.17
> > > > > > > Severity: important
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > > > Hash: SHA256
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since a few days, MOTD includes the following stanza:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1 updates could not be installed automatically. For more details,
> > > > > > > see /var/log/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrades.log
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The log doesn't show any failure. It only shows a succesful 
> > > > > > > upgrade for a handful of packages.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any way to make this 
> > > > > > > mention disappear from MOTD.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The list of packages can be found in 
> > > > > > /var/lib/unattended-upgrades/kept-back
> > > > >
> > > > > There is one package mentioned there. It however seems to be
> > > > > up-to-date. Shouldn't kept-back have been cleared once the situation
> > > > > resolved itself?
> > > > >
> > > > > > There are bugs open about explaining why packages are kept back in 
> > > > > > the log:
> > > > > > #903874 , LP: #1850964
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not looking for the explanation for why they were kept back.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is yours a case where a package is kept back or a different one?
> > > > >
> > > > > My case is a persistent MOTD notice about a kept back package that
> > > > > evidently is no longer kept back and not being able to make the
> > > > > incorrect notice disappear.
> > > >
> > > > The next successful run of unattended-upgrades is expected to clear the
> > > > kept-back file and as a result make the MOTD notice disappear.
> > > >
> > > > Could you please run u-u with --verbose --debug to see if it removes
> > > > the file or tell why it does not do so?
> > >
> > > Checking: python3-breezy ([<Origin component:'main' archive:'unstable'
> > > origin:'Debian' label:'Debian' site:'httpredir.debian.org'
> > > isTrusted:True>])
> > > sanity check failed for: {'python3-breezy=3.0.2-3', 'brz=3.0.2-2'} :
> > > pkg brz is marked to be deleted
> > > pkgs that look like they should be upgraded:
> > > Fetched 0 B in 0s (0 B/s)
> > > fetch.run() result: 0
> > > blacklist: []
> > > whitelist: []
> > > Packages that will be upgraded:
> > > InstCount=0 DelCount=0 BrokenCount=0
> > > Extracting content from
> > > /var/log/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrades-dpkg.log since
> > > 2020-02-02 17:04:50
> >
> > Based on that is seems to be true that there is 1 package,
> > python3-breezy, that can't be upgraded from an allowed origin.
> >
> > You can verify that by running: apt policy python3-breezy
> >
> > U-u should explain in the log why python3-breezy can't be upgraded and
> > this is covered in the mentioned bugs.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Balint

Reply via email to