| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Doing this disables the implicit copy assignment operator (among others)
which would cause hovac if used on the classes as it would just copy the
pointer, not the data the d-pointer points to. For most of the classes
we don't need a copy assignment operator anyway and in many classes it
was broken before as many contain a pointer of some sort.
Only for our Cacheset Container interfaces we define an explicit copy
assignment operator which could later be implemented to copy the data
from one d-pointer to the other if we need it.
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
Selecting targets based on the Release they belong to isn't to
unrealistic. In fact, it is assumed to be the most used case so it is
made the default especially as this allows to bundle another thing we
have to be careful with: Filenames and only showing targets we have
acquired.
Closes: 752702
|
|
We used to read the Release file for each Packages file and store the
data in the PackageFile struct even through potentially many Packages
(and Translation-*) files could use the same data. The point of the
exercise isn't the duplicated data through. Having the Release files as
first-class citizens in the Cache allows us to properly track their
state as well as allows us to use the information also for files which
aren't in the cache, but where we know to which Release file they
belong (Sources are an example for this).
This modifies the pkgCache structs, especially the PackagesFile struct
which depending on how libapt users access the data in these structs can
mean huge breakage or no visible change. As a single data point:
aptitude seems to be fine with this. Even if there is breakage it is
trivial to fix in a backportable way while avoiding breakage for
everyone would be a huge pain for us.
Note that not all PackageFile structs have a corresponding ReleaseFile.
In particular the dpkg/status file as well as *.deb files have not. As
these have only a Archive property need, the Component property takes
over this duty and the ReleaseFile remains zero. This is also the reason
why it isn't needed nor particularily recommended to change from
PackagesFile to ReleaseFile blindly. Sticking with the earlier is
usually the better option.
|
|
We can't add a new virtual method without breaking the ABI, but we can
freely add new methods, so for older ABIs we just implement this method
with a dynamic_cast, so that clients can be more ignorant about the API
here and especially don't need to pull a very dirty trick by assuming
internal knowledge (like apt-get did here).
|
