/usr/lib/update-notifier/package-data-downloader:OSError:process_download_requests:/usr/lib/update-notifier/package-data-downloader@305:process_download_requests:print_exc:print_exception

The Traceback:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/update-notifier/package-data-downloader", line 240, in process_download_requests
    print("%s: downloading %s" % (relfile, files[i]))
OSError: [Errno 5] Input/output error

During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/update-notifier/package-data-downloader", line 305, in <module>
    process_download_requests()
  File "/usr/lib/update-notifier/package-data-downloader", line 263, in process_download_requests
    traceback.print_exc(file=sys.stderr)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.5/traceback.py", line 159, in print_exc
    print_exception(*sys.exc_info(), limit=limit, file=file, chain=chain)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.5/traceback.py", line 101, in print_exception
    print(line, file=file, end="")
OSError: [Errno 5] Input/output error

There is also a similar one with the print("%s: processing...") line.

These crashes all involve using print and receiving an OSError:

https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/6d1b824722fbcb50df8641db1133d36056f95101
https://errors.ubuntu.com/problem/3a9e65112dd283cf56df8506f70bc088695f9bc6

This bug was fixed in the package update-notifier - 3.176

---------------
update-notifier (3.176) zesty; urgency=medium

  * data/package-data-downloader: Be resilient and do not crash when we can
    not print information about what is happening. (LP: #1640318)

 -- Brian Murray <email address hidden> Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:29:27 -0800

Looks good to accept into proposed, but:

<rbasak> bdmurray: for bug 1640318, why not use the errno module's symbolic constants rather than hardcoding a number everywhere? Also, that's a whole load of duplication - could that be in a "attempt_print" function or something?

14:26 <rbasak> bdmurray: That's more for the development release. I guess it probably doesn't matter too much for an SRU.

I'm still OK to accept this, but would you like the opportunity to change it first?

Also, are errno values the same across all architectures? I think they are, but I thought I'd ask.

+ except OSError as e:
+ if e.errno == 5:
+ pass

This check makes little sense -- if errno is 5 or something else, the exception is ignored in both cases. So just

   except OSError:
      pass

is sufficient IMHO -- after all, what else can you do, you can't even print a warning :-)

The upload that purportedly fixed this bug in release yakkety was not accepted into the -proposed repository for the following reason: Change should be updated to pass on all OSErrors..

The upload that purportedly fixed this bug in xenial was not accepted into the -proposed repository for the following reason: "Change should be updated to pass on all OSErrors.".

This has been reuploaded to the X and Y queues for the SRU team to review.

Hello errors.ubuntu.com, or anyone else affected,

Accepted update-notifier into yakkety-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-notifier/3.175.1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed.Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, and change the tag from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance!

Hello errors.ubuntu.com, or anyone else affected,

Accepted update-notifier into xenial-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-notifier/3.168.3 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed.Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, and change the tag from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance!

The new package versions do not appear in any of the buckets listed in the bug report so I'm setting this to verification-done.

This bug was fixed in the package update-notifier - 3.168.3

---------------
update-notifier (3.168.3) xenial; urgency=medium

  * data/package-data-downloader: Be resilient and do not crash when we can
    not print information about what is happening. (LP: #1640318)

 -- Brian Murray <email address hidden> Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:49:47 -0800

The verification of the Stable Release Update for update-notifier has completed successfully and the package has now been released to -updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In the event that you encounter a regression using the package from -updates please report a new bug using ubuntu-bug and tag the bug report regression-update so we can easily find any regressions.

This bug was fixed in the package update-notifier - 3.175.1

---------------
update-notifier (3.175.1) yakkety; urgency=medium

  * data/package-data-downloader: Be resilient and do not crash when we can
    not print information about what is happening. (LP: #1640318)

 -- Brian Murray <email address hidden> Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:36:42 -0800