On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:11:16PM +0300, Teodor MICU wrote: > 2012/4/20 Michael Vogt <m...@debian.org>: > > Sure, the setsid() call makes the process a session leader and removes > > the controlling tty. The rational is that if you run > > unattended-upgrades in a shell and then shutdown your tty goes away > > and unattended-upgrades gets killed even if its in the middle of a > > operation (like a upgrade). The unattended-upgrades-shutdown script is > > there to avoid that and keep the system running long enough to finish > > the upgrade - but for that unattended-upgrades must not be terminated > > by the tty going away. > > I think this protection is necessary only if U-A::Automatic-Reboot is > set to "true", right? If affirmative, why not wait until u-a finish > the pkgs upgrade and then do the reboot?
Thanks for your mail! It protects against e.g. a user manually running unattended-upgrade in a terminal and then someone shuting down the machine. In this case the running unattended-upgades would get killed even if its in the middle of the upgrade leaving the system in a bad state. It will also help if cron does not put u-n into its own process-group (I don't know if it will do that or not, but I assume it will) and on shutdown cron might get killed and with it the running u-n. The goal is to keep u-n alive and let the "unattended-upgrades-shutdown" script deal with stopping it or waiting until its finished. Given that I think that cron puts it into its own process group already its just a minor protection, but AFAICT there are no downsides either :) Cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
