| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
That was the case already for tar-only and diff-only, but in a more
confusing way and without a message while dsc "worked" before resulting
in a dpkg-source error shortly after as tar/diff files aren't available…
(cherry picked from commit 58ebb3017baf46e33a9bb2c1779d6daede27d108)
(cherry picked from commit ab951bc3184d62d9bf9a94187468329e53ac0d0a)
|
|
If apt decides it can't download a file it is relatively pointless to
try to tell dpkg-source to unpack it.
(cherry picked from commit 60a0cb424e91acebc2bba0f9add220b474e432e6)
|
|
Setting the C++ locale via std::locale::global(std::locale("")); which
would otherwise default to the default C locale (aka: unaffected by
setlocale) effects the formatting of numeric types in IO streams, which
for output for humans is perfectly sensible, but breaks our many text
interfaces used and parsed by us and others without expecting the
numbers to be formatted.
Closes: #825396
(cherry picked from commit b58e2c7c56b1416a343e81f9f80cb1f02c128e25)
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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>
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
