Mailing List Archive: usr active=FALSE after upgrade to 0.9.9-0 ?

usr active=FALSE after upgrade to 0.9.9-0 ?

Apr 21, 2010, 2:01 AM

Post #1 of 3 (322 views)

Hi all,
after upgrade to 0.9.9-0 (from 0.9.8.4-0) I get problems with some users
(5/16), after investigate I discover some user in usr table with
active=FALSE... I am not really sure, but could be possible
update-davical-database did this?

TIA
Alessandro De Zorzi

2010-04-16 19:25:04 upgrade davical 0.9.7.6-0 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-16 19:25:04 status half-configured davical 0.9.7.6-0
2010-04-16 19:25:04 status unpacked davical 0.9.7.6-0
2010-04-16 19:25:04 status half-installed davical 0.9.7.6-0
2010-04-16 19:25:05 status half-installed davical 0.9.7.6-0
2010-04-16 19:25:05 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-16 19:25:05 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-16 19:25:05 configure davical 0.9.8.4-0 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-16 19:25:05 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-16 19:25:05 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-16 19:25:05 status half-configured davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-16 19:25:05 status installed davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-20 11:34:41 upgrade davical 0.9.8.4-0 0.9.9-0
2010-04-20 11:34:41 status half-configured davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-20 11:34:41 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-20 11:34:41 status half-installed davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-20 11:34:41 status half-installed davical 0.9.8.4-0
2010-04-20 11:34:41 status unpacked davical 0.9.9-0
2010-04-20 11:34:41 status unpacked davical 0.9.9-0
2010-04-20 11:34:52 configure davical 0.9.9-0 0.9.9-0
2010-04-20 11:34:52 status unpacked davical 0.9.9-0
2010-04-20 11:34:52 status unpacked davical 0.9.9-0
2010-04-20 11:34:52 status half-configured davical 0.9.9-0
2010-04-20 11:34:52 status installed davical 0.9.9-0

usr active=FALSE after upgrade to 0.9.9-0 ? [ In reply to ]

andrew at morphoss

Apr 21, 2010, 2:37 AM

Post #2 of 3 (315 views)

Permalink

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 11:01 +0200, Alessandro De Zorzi wrote:
> Hi all,
> after upgrade to 0.9.9-0 (from 0.9.8.4-0) I get problems with some users
> (5/16), after investigate I discover some user in usr table with
> active=FALSE... I am not really sure, but could be possible
> update-davical-database did this?

No. The database update script does not mark any users active, however
there are some checks for 'active' in 0.9.9 that were missing in
0.9.8.4, so that bugfix has probably caught you out.

Cheers,
Andrew.

>
> TIA
> Alessandro De Zorzi
>
> 2010-04-16 19:25:04 upgrade davical 0.9.7.6-0 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:04 status half-configured davical 0.9.7.6-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:04 status unpacked davical 0.9.7.6-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:04 status half-installed davical 0.9.7.6-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:05 status half-installed davical 0.9.7.6-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:05 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:05 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:05 configure davical 0.9.8.4-0 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:05 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:05 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:05 status half-configured davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-16 19:25:05 status installed davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:41 upgrade davical 0.9.8.4-0 0.9.9-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:41 status half-configured davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:41 status unpacked davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:41 status half-installed davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:41 status half-installed davical 0.9.8.4-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:41 status unpacked davical 0.9.9-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:41 status unpacked davical 0.9.9-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:52 configure davical 0.9.9-0 0.9.9-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:52 status unpacked davical 0.9.9-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:52 status unpacked davical 0.9.9-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:52 status half-configured davical 0.9.9-0
> 2010-04-20 11:34:52 status installed davical 0.9.9-0
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com +64(272)DEBIAN
Necessity is the mother of documentation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.morphoss.com/pipermail/davical-users/attachments/20100421/1c5b45f0/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------

usr active=FALSE after upgrade to 0.9.9-0 ? [ In reply to ]

lota at klez

Apr 22, 2010, 1:03 AM

Post #3 of 3 (316 views)

Permalink

Andrew McMillan ha scritto:
> No. The database update script does not mark any users active, however
> there are some checks for 'active' in 0.9.9 that were missing in
> 0.9.8.4, so that bugfix has probably caught you out.
>
probably

all works fine now, thankyou!

cheers
Alessandro