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 question asked Se
Read more

Bahrain

Image
For other uses, see Bahrain (disambiguation). Sovereign island state in the Persian Gulf Kingdom of Bahrain مملكة البحرين   (Arabic) Mamlakat al-Baḥrayn Flag Coat of arms Anthem:  نشيد البحرين الوطني Bahrainona Our Bahrain Location of   Bahrain    (circled in red) Capital and largest city Manama 26°13′N 50°35′E  /  26.217°N 50.583°E  / 26.217; 50.583 Official languages Arabic Ethnic groups (2010 [1] ) 50.7% Arab (46% Bahrani, 4.7% other Arabs) 45.5% Asian 1% European 1.2% Others Religion Islam Demonym(s) Bahraini Government Unitary constitutional monarchy • King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa • Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa • Prime Minister Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa Legislature National Assembly • Upper house Consultative Council • Lower house Council of Representatives Independence • Declared Independence [2] 14 August 1971 • from United Kingdom [1] 15 August 1971 • Admitted to the United Nations 21 September 1971 • Kingdom of Bahrain 14 February 2002
Read more

Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 0 down vote favorite I am trying to setup postfix to relay all mail generated on the local machine via SMTP to a mailgun relay. I have used the mailgun relay before with success on an ubuntu server, but I am migrating to a Centos 7 server which I will be running in FIPS mode. There error log is below, slightly sanitized. I have a small enough network that I choose to have each machine reach out to mailgun individually (this the loopback-only, 127.0.0.0/8 restrictions) and no firewall open port allowing smtp in to the machine. I assume the FIPS mode (and with it disabling of MD5) is causing problems, but I don't know how to overcome it or if it is even possible for tls_fprint to use some supported hash such as sha256 or sha512. However, the relay=none is slightly concerning since I have relayhost set, but perhaps that is because the smtp process is failing? Any help would be appreciated! postconf -n: alias_database = hash:/etc/alia
Read more