summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/apt-private/private-source.cc
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2016-03-06support APT::Get::Build-Dep-Automatic again in build-depDavid Kalnischkies
In a249b3e6fd798935a02b769149c9791a6fa6ef16 I dropped with the manual first resolver step also the support for installing build-deps as automatic in such a way that it behaved like this option was enabled by default. Restoring support for it means that we go back to mark build- dependencies as manually installed again by default and provide this option to keep them as automatically installed.
2016-02-10get dpkg lock in build-dep if cache was invalid againDavid Kalnischkies
Regression introduced in a249b3e6fd798935a02b769149c9791a6fa6ef16, which in the case of an invalid cache would build the first part unlocked and later pick up the (still unlocked) cache for further processing, so the system got never locked and apt would end up complaining about being unable to release the lock at shutdown. The far more common case of having a valid cache worked as expected and hence covered up the problem – especially as tests who would have noticed it are simulations only, which do not lock. Closes: 814139 Reported-By: Balint Reczey <balint@balintreczey.hu> Reported-By: Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> on IRC
2016-02-03avoid building dependency tree in 'source' commandDavid Kalnischkies
We don't need the dependencies for obvious reasons and we don't need the candidate version either, so building a pkgDepCache is wasted effort, which we can stop doing now that build-dep cleared the path.
2016-02-03use pkgCache::VS instead of pkgDepCache::VS()David Kalnischkies
The later just calls the earlier, but the later needs the fullblown dependency cache to be initialized, which is a very costly operation and isn't done anymore that early in the run as we would need to throw away and rebuild it again after we got all the information about source pkgs. As we end up with a nullptr for the pkgDepCache, we use a slightly longer calling convention to make sure that we use the pkgCache directly, avoiding nullptr induced segfaults and costly operations. Git-Dch: Ignore Reported-By: Balint Reczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>
2016-01-26get sources for packages in multiple releases againDavid Kalnischkies
In 321213f0dcdcdaab04e01663e7a047b261400c9c Andreas Cadhalpun corrected the incorrect overriding of earlier better-fitting results with later (semi-)matches – but that broke the case in which packages are in multiple releases in the same version (and the user has both releases configured). Closes: 812497
2016-01-25reimplement build-dep via apts normal resolverDavid Kalnischkies
build-dep was implemented by parsing the build-dependencies of a package and figuring out which packages to install/remove based on this. That means that for the first level of dependencies build-dep was implementing its very own resolver with all the benefits (aka: bugs) this gives us for not using the existing resolver for all levels. Making this work involves generating a dummy binary package with fitting Depends and Conflicts and as we can't create them out of thin air the cache generation needs to be involved so we end up writing a Packages file which we want to parse – after we have parsed the other Packages files already. With .dsc/.deb files we could add them before we started parsing anything. With a bit of care we can avoid generating too much data we have to throw away again (as many parts assume that e.g. the count of packages doesn't change midair), so that on a speed front there shouldn't be much of a difference, but output can be slightly confusing as if we have a completely valid cache on disk the "Reading package lists... Done" is printed two times – but apt is pretty quick about it in that case. Closes: #137560, #444930, #489911, #583914, #728317, #812173
2016-01-14delay build-dep variable initialisation until neededDavid Kalnischkies
Git-Dch: Ignore
2016-01-02fail installing build-deps if parsing them failedDavid Kalnischkies
Git-Dch: Ignore
2015-12-01require explicit paths to dsc/control as we do for deb filesDavid Kalnischkies
Otherwise a user is subject to unexpected content-injection depending on which directory she happens to start apt in. This also cleans up the code requiring less implementation details in build-dep which is always good. Technically, this is an ABI break as we override virtual methods, but that they weren't overridden was a mistake resulting in pure classes, which shouldn't be pure, so they were unusable – and as they are new in 1.1 nobody is using them yet (and hopefully ever as they are borderline implementation details). Closes: 806693
2015-12-01deal with configured build-essential firstDavid Kalnischkies
There is no need to check configured build-essentials for each package, doing it once at the start ought to be enough. Git-Dch: Ignore
2015-12-01split build-dep satisfier loop out of DoBuildDepDavid Kalnischkies
Lets do this non-behaviour change before we modify the source for real as the reflow and moving would otherwise hide all the interesting changes. Git-Dch: Ignore
2015-11-29do not override exact targetrelease matches with lesser matchesAndreas Cadhalpun
The relevant testcases are in test/integration/test-apt-get-source. There is a test for #731853 that is supposed to "ensure that apt will pick the higher version number" of 0.0.1 (stable) and 0.1 (stable). However, this works by pure chance, as simply reversing the order of the two insertsource lines makes the test fail. So #731853 isn't really fixed, yet. Actually, that's related to the problem I reported, as the underlying issue for both is the same: In the FindSrc function apt chooses a new 'best hit', if either * there is a target release and it matches the release of the package, * or the version of the package is higher than the last best hit. Consider having 1.0 (stable), 2.0 (unstable) and 1.5 (unstable), in this order. Looking for the version in stable, apt first selects 1.0, because the release matches the target release, but then subsequently selects 2.0, because the version is higher. Looking for the version in unstable, apt first selects 2.0, because the release matches the target release, but then subsequently selects 1.5, because the release also matches the target release. The correct way would be to choose a new 'best hit', if either * there is a target release and it matches the release of the package, * or there is no target release and the version is higher than the last best hit. Closes: 746412 Mail-Reference: <565A604B.7090104@googlemail.com> Mail-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/11/msg00470.html
2015-11-04sanify API to get 'the' candidate versionDavid Kalnischkies
This was discussed a while ago on #debian-apt and now that I see myself making this mistake lets bite the bullet and fix it in the easy way out version: Using a new name which fits with a similar named setter and deprecate the old method instead of 'hostily' changing API. Closes: #803471
2015-11-04hidden support more apt-get/apt-cache commands in aptDavid Kalnischkies
apt is supposed to be a user-friendly interface, so while these commands are usually poweruser material and therefore do not need to be shown in general introduction manpages/help messages its of no use to not allow users to use them. This includes clean, autoclean, build-dep, source, download, changelog, depends, rdepends and showsrc – it doesn't include more non-interactive commands like dump or xvcg as those are usually used by scripts if at all. Closes: 778234, 780700, 781237