Debian 9.5 seems to have automatically updated itself to Debian 9.6

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












We have several Debian 9.5 servers.



However, just a few days after the officially release of Debian 9.6, I noticed that one of our servers had already automatically updated itself to Debian 9.6.



We have neither initiated any upgrades, nor have installed and do not use unattended-upgrades. All our Debian servers are cloned copies of the same server.



None of our other Debian servers have ever updated themselves before and indeed all our other Debian 9.5 servers still are Debian 9.5 servers.



How is this possible?






debian upgrade unattended-upgrades







share|improve this question









New contributor




user321321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • Are you absolutely sure you did not run an update between the release of 9.6 and now? Please edit your post to include the output of HISTTIMEFORMAT="%d/%m/%y %T " history | grep 'apt upgrade' you can change it to apt-get or aptitude depending on which one you use.
    – kemotep
    2 days ago










  • Thanks for quick response. No, nothing shows up in history.
    – user321321
    2 days ago










  • I did wonder if lsb_release -a was mis-reporting the version. uname -r says 4.9.0-5-amd64
    – user321321
    2 days ago










  • Is there anything in /var/log/apt/history.log* or /var/log/dpkg.log* referring to an upgrade of base-files, specifically to version 9.9+deb9u6?
    – Stephen Kitt
    2 days ago










  • Hi Stephen. No, both log files contain the most recent entry on 24 September 2018 long before 10 November 2018 release date of Debian 9.6. Even then they only contain an entry for the removal of a redundant package. My source.list is: deb ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb-src ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free deb-src security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free
    – user321321
    2 days ago














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












We have several Debian 9.5 servers.



However, just a few days after the officially release of Debian 9.6, I noticed that one of our servers had already automatically updated itself to Debian 9.6.



We have neither initiated any upgrades, nor have installed and do not use unattended-upgrades. All our Debian servers are cloned copies of the same server.



None of our other Debian servers have ever updated themselves before and indeed all our other Debian 9.5 servers still are Debian 9.5 servers.



How is this possible?






debian upgrade unattended-upgrades







share|improve this question









New contributor




user321321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • Are you absolutely sure you did not run an update between the release of 9.6 and now? Please edit your post to include the output of HISTTIMEFORMAT="%d/%m/%y %T " history | grep 'apt upgrade' you can change it to apt-get or aptitude depending on which one you use.
    – kemotep
    2 days ago










  • Thanks for quick response. No, nothing shows up in history.
    – user321321
    2 days ago










  • I did wonder if lsb_release -a was mis-reporting the version. uname -r says 4.9.0-5-amd64
    – user321321
    2 days ago










  • Is there anything in /var/log/apt/history.log* or /var/log/dpkg.log* referring to an upgrade of base-files, specifically to version 9.9+deb9u6?
    – Stephen Kitt
    2 days ago










  • Hi Stephen. No, both log files contain the most recent entry on 24 September 2018 long before 10 November 2018 release date of Debian 9.6. Even then they only contain an entry for the removal of a redundant package. My source.list is: deb ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb-src ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free deb-src security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free
    – user321321
    2 days ago












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











We have several Debian 9.5 servers.



However, just a few days after the officially release of Debian 9.6, I noticed that one of our servers had already automatically updated itself to Debian 9.6.



We have neither initiated any upgrades, nor have installed and do not use unattended-upgrades. All our Debian servers are cloned copies of the same server.



None of our other Debian servers have ever updated themselves before and indeed all our other Debian 9.5 servers still are Debian 9.5 servers.



How is this possible?






debian upgrade unattended-upgrades







share|improve this question









New contributor




user321321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











We have several Debian 9.5 servers.



However, just a few days after the officially release of Debian 9.6, I noticed that one of our servers had already automatically updated itself to Debian 9.6.



We have neither initiated any upgrades, nor have installed and do not use unattended-upgrades. All our Debian servers are cloned copies of the same server.



None of our other Debian servers have ever updated themselves before and indeed all our other Debian 9.5 servers still are Debian 9.5 servers.



How is this possible?






debian upgrade unattended-upgrades




debian upgrade unattended-upgrades






share|improve this question









New contributor




user321321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




user321321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Rui F Ribeiro

38.2k1475123




38.2k1475123






New contributor




user321321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









user321321

1




1




New contributor




user321321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user321321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user321321 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • Are you absolutely sure you did not run an update between the release of 9.6 and now? Please edit your post to include the output of HISTTIMEFORMAT="%d/%m/%y %T " history | grep 'apt upgrade' you can change it to apt-get or aptitude depending on which one you use.
    – kemotep
    2 days ago










  • Thanks for quick response. No, nothing shows up in history.
    – user321321
    2 days ago










  • I did wonder if lsb_release -a was mis-reporting the version. uname -r says 4.9.0-5-amd64
    – user321321
    2 days ago










  • Is there anything in /var/log/apt/history.log* or /var/log/dpkg.log* referring to an upgrade of base-files, specifically to version 9.9+deb9u6?
    – Stephen Kitt
    2 days ago










  • Hi Stephen. No, both log files contain the most recent entry on 24 September 2018 long before 10 November 2018 release date of Debian 9.6. Even then they only contain an entry for the removal of a redundant package. My source.list is: deb ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb-src ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free deb-src security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free
    – user321321
    2 days ago
















  • Are you absolutely sure you did not run an update between the release of 9.6 and now? Please edit your post to include the output of HISTTIMEFORMAT="%d/%m/%y %T " history | grep 'apt upgrade' you can change it to apt-get or aptitude depending on which one you use.
    – kemotep
    2 days ago










  • Thanks for quick response. No, nothing shows up in history.
    – user321321
    2 days ago










  • I did wonder if lsb_release -a was mis-reporting the version. uname -r says 4.9.0-5-amd64
    – user321321
    2 days ago










  • Is there anything in /var/log/apt/history.log* or /var/log/dpkg.log* referring to an upgrade of base-files, specifically to version 9.9+deb9u6?
    – Stephen Kitt
    2 days ago










  • Hi Stephen. No, both log files contain the most recent entry on 24 September 2018 long before 10 November 2018 release date of Debian 9.6. Even then they only contain an entry for the removal of a redundant package. My source.list is: deb ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb-src ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free deb-src security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free
    – user321321
    2 days ago















Are you absolutely sure you did not run an update between the release of 9.6 and now? Please edit your post to include the output of HISTTIMEFORMAT="%d/%m/%y %T " history | grep 'apt upgrade' you can change it to apt-get or aptitude depending on which one you use.
– kemotep
2 days ago




Are you absolutely sure you did not run an update between the release of 9.6 and now? Please edit your post to include the output of HISTTIMEFORMAT="%d/%m/%y %T " history | grep 'apt upgrade' you can change it to apt-get or aptitude depending on which one you use.
– kemotep
2 days ago












Thanks for quick response. No, nothing shows up in history.
– user321321
2 days ago




Thanks for quick response. No, nothing shows up in history.
– user321321
2 days ago












I did wonder if lsb_release -a was mis-reporting the version. uname -r says 4.9.0-5-amd64
– user321321
2 days ago




I did wonder if lsb_release -a was mis-reporting the version. uname -r says 4.9.0-5-amd64
– user321321
2 days ago












Is there anything in /var/log/apt/history.log* or /var/log/dpkg.log* referring to an upgrade of base-files, specifically to version 9.9+deb9u6?
– Stephen Kitt
2 days ago




Is there anything in /var/log/apt/history.log* or /var/log/dpkg.log* referring to an upgrade of base-files, specifically to version 9.9+deb9u6?
– Stephen Kitt
2 days ago












Hi Stephen. No, both log files contain the most recent entry on 24 September 2018 long before 10 November 2018 release date of Debian 9.6. Even then they only contain an entry for the removal of a redundant package. My source.list is: deb ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb-src ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free deb-src security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free
– user321321
2 days ago




Hi Stephen. No, both log files contain the most recent entry on 24 September 2018 long before 10 November 2018 release date of Debian 9.6. Even then they only contain an entry for the removal of a redundant package. My source.list is: deb ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb-src ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free deb security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free deb-src security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates main contrib non-free
– user321321
2 days ago















active

oldest

votes











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






user321321 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482170%2fdebian-9-5-seems-to-have-automatically-updated-itself-to-debian-9-6%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown






























active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








user321321 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









 

draft saved


draft discarded


















user321321 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












user321321 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











user321321 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f482170%2fdebian-9-5-seems-to-have-automatically-updated-itself-to-debian-9-6%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown






-

Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this question asked Sep 26 at 0:12 ToanLuong 49 9 add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite I'm using WordPress 4.9.8, CiviCRM to 5.5.1, I usually send email to contact by Search> Find contacts View contact details Action> Send email Send email ok, Contact received mail ok like picture But status only Email sent though contact read email or not. So, can CiviCRM can change status to Email read when contact read email? wordpress email share | improve this questi...
Read more

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP 1 How can I extract a single band from multi-band raster in QGIS? I have an remote sensed image which has 6 bands (including NDVI band), I want to display each band separately, but have no idea how to do. I have seen some questions similar here but none worked for me. The original image (has 6 bands) is: I want to display the band 6 which should be like this: But I tried gdal_translate, and couldn't get the correct result. What I have got is: qgis raster multi-band share | improve this question edited Mar 5 at 0:53 Summer asked Mar 4 at 6:42 Summer Summer 23 6 Is this any help gis.stackexchange.com/questions/220658/… ? if not gis.stackexchange.com/questions/62133/… might help. – Michael Stimson Mar 4 at 6:46 Thanks for answering but when I used gdal_translate, qgis showed that 'Error 4: Kayena.tif: No such file or directory". Would you know how to fi...
Read more

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite I am currently learning reverse engineering and am studying the flags register. I had in my mind that rflags was just another name for one of the 16 general purpose registers, for example rax or rbx . But it looks like rflags is actually an additional register. So that makes 17 registers in total... how many more could there be? I have spent at least an hour on this and found numerous different answers. The best answer so far is this, which says that there are 40 registers in total. 16 General Purpose Registers 2 Status Registers 6 Code Segment Registers 16 SSE Registers 8 FPU/MMX Registers But if I add that up, I get 48. Could anybody provide an official answer on how many registers an x86_64 CPU has (e.g. an Intel i7). Additionally, I have seen references to 'hardware' and 'architectural' registers. What are those registers and how many are there? register x86-64 share | improve this...
Read more