Holger Levsen wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>> Two months ago, Steve wrote:
>> > * enable it for installation via d-i by default. At installation
>> [it being unattended-upgrades]
>> What's the status of this? I do not like this idea, it interacts
>> p
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>
>Distro development is difficult, let's go shopping.
>
>Sarcasm aside, here's a summary of the situation, as I understand it.
>tldr: let's not despair, we have a mostly technical problem that's
>simpler to solve than choosing a default editor, we can handle this.
>
>We'd lik
On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 12:04:54PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Now we can't be the Universal OS, no matter what we do :-)
Distro development is difficult, let's go shopping.
Sarcasm aside, here's a summary of the situation, as I understand it.
tldr: let's not despair, we have a mostly technical
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:29:12PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Jan 06 2017, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > If we want to be the Universal OS, we can't assume that any time
> > (not chosen by the user) is ok to do an upgrade.
>
> If we want to be the Universal OS, we can't assume that users will
>
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Two months ago, Steve wrote:
> > * enable it for installation via d-i by default. At installation
> [it being unattended-upgrades]
> What's the status of this? I do not like this idea, it interacts
> poorly with desktops which h
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> What now?
Clearly the answer of unattended-upgrades or not is situation
dependent and the solution should depend on who is running Debian in
what context.
Desktop users should get whatever UI is available for the particular
desktop that is i
On Jan 06 2017, Santiago Vila wrote:
> If we want to be the Universal OS, we can't assume that any time
> (not chosen by the user) is ok to do an upgrade.
If we want to be the Universal OS, we can't assume that users will
explicitly trigger an install of security upgrades either. Nor can we
assum
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Two months ago, Steve wrote:
> > * enable it for installation via d-i by default. At installation
> [it being unattended-upgrades]
>
> What's the status of this? I do not like this idea, it interacts
> poorly with desktops whic
Two months ago, Steve wrote:
> * enable it for installation via d-i by default. At installation
[it being unattended-upgrades]
What's the status of this? I do not like this idea, it interacts
poorly with desktops which handle upgrades via PackageKit (which
is the default) and since there are locki
On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 04:13 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> On December 27, 2016 11:10:55 PM EST, Adam Borowski
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:04:21AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > > FTR, it's #739636.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Postfix has no way to know it's temporary, so I think a
Op 26-12-16 om 23:44 schreef Paul Wise:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:35 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>
>> I use a script on a few servers to realize this, it's not perfect:
>> http://vandervlis.nl/files/updateafter
>
> It might be interesting to contribute this to unattended-upgrades.
I use the
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:13:13AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On December 27, 2016 11:10:55 PM EST, Adam Borowski
> wrote:
> >On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:04:21AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> >FTR, it's #739636.
> >> >
> >> Postfix has no way to know it's temporary, so I think a te
On December 27, 2016 11:10:55 PM EST, Adam Borowski wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:04:21AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> >FTR, it's #739636.
>> >
>> Postfix has no way to know it's temporary, so I think a temporary
>error
>> would be wrong.
>
>It's easy to tell apart "can't connect to SQL
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:04:21AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >FTR, it's #739636.
> >
> Postfix has no way to know it's temporary, so I think a temporary error
> would be wrong.
It's easy to tell apart "can't connect to SQL" from "query succeeded and
returned 'no such user'".
--
Autotools h
On December 27, 2016 1:26:24 PM EST, Samuel Thibault
wrote:
>Ian Jackson, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 23:45:37 +, wrote:
>> Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: unattended-upgrades by default?"):
>> > SZALAY Attila, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 20:54:26 +0100, wrote:
>> > &g
Ian Jackson, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 23:45:37 +, wrote:
> Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: unattended-upgrades by default?"):
> > SZALAY Attila, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 20:54:26 +0100, wrote:
> > > If we replace postgresql with postfix, that is much more closer to the
>
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 12:35 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> I use a script on a few servers to realize this, it's not perfect:
> http://vandervlis.nl/files/updateafter
It might be interesting to contribute this to unattended-upgrades.
> I use "at" to reboot very early in the morning:
/etc/apt/
Op 25-12-16 om 01:43 schreef Paul Wise:
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
>
>> I am doing this myself already on desktop systems so I have some
>> experiences with it.
>
> Thanks for sharing your experience.
>
>> What I would really like is a mechanism where the user ca
Op 25-12-16 om 06:36 schreef Samuel Thibault:
> Paul van der Vlis, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 01:34:15 +0100, wrote:
>> I would like it when
>> desktop users could get a message that programms has to be restarted.
>> Not sure this is important for servers too, I would think so.
>
> In a mail server we hav
Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: unattended-upgrades by default?"):
> SZALAY Attila, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 20:54:26 +0100, wrote:
> > If we replace postgresql with postfix, that is much more closer to the
> > standard. And I guess, that postgresql is just a "misspelling"
SZALAY Attila, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 20:54:26 +0100, wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On Sun, 2016-12-25 at 08:18 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Scott Kitterman, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 01:27:58 -0500, wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 25, 2016 06:36:52 AM Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > Paul van der Vlis, on Sun 25
Hi All,
On Sun, 2016-12-25 at 08:18 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Scott Kitterman, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 01:27:58 -0500, wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 25, 2016 06:36:52 AM Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Paul van der Vlis, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 01:34:15 +0100, wrote:
> > > > I would like it when
> > > >
On 25.12.2016 08:18, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Yes, but that's a data point to have in mind: blindly upgrading software
> is not always without consequences.
Do we actually communicate a proper way of running services on a Debian
machine, with services coming from Debian packages? If so, what is it
Scott Kitterman, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 01:27:58 -0500, wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2016 06:36:52 AM Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Paul van der Vlis, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 01:34:15 +0100, wrote:
> > > I would like it when
> > > desktop users could get a message that programms has to be restarted.
> > >
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 06:36:52 AM Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Paul van der Vlis, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 01:34:15 +0100, wrote:
> > I would like it when
> > desktop users could get a message that programms has to be restarted.
> > Not sure this is important for servers too, I would think so.
>
> In
Paul van der Vlis, on Sun 25 Dec 2016 01:34:15 +0100, wrote:
> I would like it when
> desktop users could get a message that programms has to be restarted.
> Not sure this is important for servers too, I would think so.
In a mail server we have, the mysql upgrades are problematic: while the
sql se
On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> I am doing this myself already on desktop systems so I have some
> experiences with it.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
> What I would really like is a mechanism where the user can tune after
> how many days the upgrade will occur.
Op 03-11-16 om 19:47 schreef Steve McIntyre:
> Thoughts?
I am doing this myself allready on desktop systems so I have some
experiences with it.
What I would really like is a mechanism where the user can tune after
how many days the upgrade will occur. Maybe a default could be after 2
days. Peopl
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 23:06 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Any "solution" for the reboot problem that assumes that there is a
> user who regularly logs into the machine misses the problem.
Any solution that is the same for every device is completely wrong.
Cloud images should probably auto-reboot A
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 11:16:53AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > Forced reboot on upgrade is damage. Let's learn from errors of others.
>
> needrestart has a mechanism (needrestart-session) to hook into user
> sessions, perhaps that could be
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Forced reboot on upgrade is damage. Let's learn from errors of others.
needrestart has a mechanism (needrestart-session) to hook into user
sessions, perhaps that could be extended to request users reboot for
security updates.
--
bye,
pabs
Steve McIntyre schrieb:
> Definitely. I think we've got general consenus here, and we should do
> the following:
>
> * work on fixing some of the highlighted bugs in unattended-upgrades
>
> * enable it for installation via d-i by default. At installation
>time, it should be enabled by defaul
On 11/04/2016 12:33 AM, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> One side mark: once we start that, we might expose users to the public
> that they run this, as then a lot of users will send a similar sized
> packets to the internet! But i see no real security concern with that.
where is the difference betwee
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:51:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:47:28PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >...
> > * it will be a different experience compared to what people will get
> >when installing Debian normally, using d-i / debootstrap. Most
> >(all?) of our
On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 16:15:34 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 07.11.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Felipe Sateler:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:07:50 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>
>>
>>> See
>>> https://blogs.gnome.org/lkundrak/2015/08/27/networkmanager-1-0-6-
brings-
>> metered-connections-api-and-more/
>
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:47:28PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> One of the topics that we've been talking about yesterday is automatic
>> software upgrades of cloud images. Some of the cloud platform
>> providers really want this so that unsophisticated / inexperienced
>>
Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>NetworkManager (since 1.0.6) exposes the information whether a
>connection is metered.
>
>See
>https://blogs.gnome.org/lkundrak/2015/08/27/networkmanager-1-0-6-brings-metered-connections-api-and-more/
>
>This can be set explicitly by the user, e.g. for a WiFi connection.
>
>
Am 07.11.2016 um 15:55 schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:07:50 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>> See
>> https://blogs.gnome.org/lkundrak/2015/08/27/networkmanager-1-0-6-brings-
> metered-connections-api-and-more/
>>
>> This can be set explicitly by the user, e.g. for a WiFi connecti
On Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:07:50 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 07.11.2016 um 14:48 schrieb Felipe Sateler:
>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:47:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>>> To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
>>> proposing that we should switch to installing unattende
Am 07.11.2016 um 14:48 schrieb Felipe Sateler:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:47:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
>> proposing that we should switch to installing unattended-upgrades by
>> default (and enabling it too) *unless* somethin
Quoting Felipe Sateler :
Is there a way to mark network connections as "expensive", and thus u-a
does nothing if only connected via that?
It would be very annoying to have packages automatically downloaded when
tethering my phone connection.
Good point!
Even Wifi might be cheap or expensive,
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:47:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
> proposing that we should switch to installing unattended-upgrades by
> default (and enabling it too) *unless* something else in the
> installation is already expected to de
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 02:56:59PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Guido Günther (2016-11-04 12:26:51)
> > We should also enable needsrestart, whatmaps, checkrestart or similar
> > to restart affected services after these upgrades otherwise the e.g.
> > openssl update might go without ef
On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Michael Vogt wrote:
> Thanks for this reminder Paul! #828215 is fixed in git and will be
> part of the next upload (which should happy early next week).
Thanks! If you have time, a fix for jessie/wheezy would be appreciated too.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:47:28PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm in Seattle for the Debian Cloud sprint and it's going really
> well. I'll post a report in a few days summarising what we've
> done. But, in the meantime, there's something that has come up which I
> think merits
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> 2016-11-04 13:29 GMT+01:00 Roland Mas :
> > Tangentially related: is there something similar for kernels? My
> > monitoring setup currently compares the age of the most recent file in
> > /boot with the uptime, but I feel there m
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:38:38PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
[..]
> > To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
> > proposing that we should switch to installing unattended-upgrades by
> > default (and enabling it too) *unl
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:27:00PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:51:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Should Debian also default to automatically reboot?
> >
> > If the answer is "no", then nothing is a solution that does not also
> > solve how to notify the user when
Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> * Steve McIntyre [2016-11-03 19:47:28 CET]:
> > One of the topics that we've been talking about yesterday is automatic
> > software upgrades of cloud images. Some of the cloud platform
> > providers really want this so that unsophisticated / inexperienced
> > users of Debian
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 10:51:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Should Debian also default to automatically reboot?
>
> If the answer is "no", then nothing is a solution that does not also
> solve how to notify the user when a new security update of the kernel
> was automatically installed on his
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:47:28PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>...
> * it will be a different experience compared to what people will get
>when installing Debian normally, using d-i / debootstrap. Most
>(all?) of our desktop environments already have some automatic
>notification of a
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 04:15:58PM +0100, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> In theory I'm all for it, but there definitely should be some more fine
> tuning for that. Please don't auto-restart varnish by needrestart, it
> puts a lot of load on the backend which might be a very bad idea. And
> the downtime
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Luca Capello wrote:
>
> I still think that a non-manual upgrade (i.e. an upgrade which has not
> been checked by a manual process, which means that a scripted upgrade is
> not part of it) should not be a default on any OS, but it seems I am the
> only one thinking l
Hi!
* Steve McIntyre [2016-11-03 19:47:28 CET]:
> One of the topics that we've been talking about yesterday is automatic
> software upgrades of cloud images. Some of the cloud platform
> providers really want this so that unsophisticated / inexperienced
> users of Debian images on their plat
Steve McIntyre writes:
> To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
> proposing that we should switch to installing unattended-upgrades by
> default (and enabling it too) *unless* something else in the
> installation is already expected to deal with security updates.
Sounds l
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 02:13:35PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> I still think that a non-manual upgrade (i.e. an upgrade which has not
> been checked by a manual process, which means that a scripted upgrade is
> not part of it) should not be a default on any OS, but it seems I am the
> only one thi
Quoting Guido Günther (2016-11-04 12:26:51)
> We should also enable needsrestart, whatmaps, checkrestart or similar
> to restart affected services after these upgrades otherwise the e.g.
> openssl update might go without effect until openssh, bind,
> get restarted manually or rebooted.
needres
2016-11-04 13:29 GMT+01:00 Roland Mas :
> Tangentially related: is there something similar for kernels? My
> monitoring setup currently compares the age of the most recent file in
> /boot with the uptime, but I feel there must be something more proper
> somewhere.
Unattended-Upgrades can also han
Hi there!,
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 12:26:51 +0100, Guido Günther wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:47:28PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
> > proposing that we should switch to installing unattended-upgrades by
> > default (and enabli
Roland Mas, on Fri 04 Nov 2016 13:29:02 +0100, wrote:
> Guido Günther, 2016-11-04 12:26:51 +0100 :
> > Please do. We should also enable needsrestart, whatmaps, checkrestart
> > or similar to restart affected services after these upgrades otherwise
> > the e.g. openssl update might go without effect
Guido Günther, 2016-11-04 12:26:51 +0100 :
[...]
> Please do. We should also enable needsrestart, whatmaps, checkrestart
> or similar to restart affected services after these upgrades otherwise
> the e.g. openssl update might go without effect until openssh, bind,
> get restarted manually or reb
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:47:28PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm in Seattle for the Debian Cloud sprint and it's going really
> well. I'll post a report in a few days summarising what we've
> done. But, in the meantime, there's something that has come up which I
> think merits
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> * it will be a different experience compared to what people will get
>when installing Debian normally, using d-i / debootstrap.
That should be fixed in d-i IMO.
> To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
> propos
Hi,
On Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 18:47:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm in Seattle for the Debian Cloud sprint and it's going really
> well. I'll post a report in a few days summarising what we've
> done. But, in the meantime, there's something that has come up which I
> think meri
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:47:28PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
> proposing that we should switch to installing unattended-upgrades by
> default (and enabling it too)
Please do. I've been doing this for ages on all my Debian machine
On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 18:47 +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
> proposing that we should switch to installing unattended-upgrades by
> default (and enabling it too) *unless* something else in the
> installation is already expected to deal
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:47:28PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> One of the topics that we've been talking about yesterday is automatic
> software upgrades of cloud images. Some of the cloud platform
> providers really want this so that unsophisticated / inexperienced
> users of Debian images on t
2016-11-03 19:47 GMT+01:00 Steve McIntyre :
> Hey folks,
Hello,
[...]
> To solve the issue and provide security updates by default, I'm
> proposing that we should switch to installing unattended-upgrades by
> default (and enabling it too) *unless* something else in the
> installation is already e
68 matches
Mail list logo
