| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
To prevent accidents like adding http-sources while using tor+http it
can make sense to allow disabling methods. It might even make sense to
allow "redirections" and adding "symlinked" methods via configuration.
This could e.g. allow using different options for certain sources by
adding and configuring a "virtual" new method which picks up the config
based on the name it was called with like e.g. http does if called as
tor+http.
|
|
This fixes a test failures in the cmake branch which contains
sub directories in the methods output dir.
|
|
This makes it easier to understand what really is an error
and what not.
|
|
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
Reference mail:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2015/11/msg00006.html
|
|
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
Continueing on the track of dropping privileges in all methods, lets
drop it in copy, too, as the reasoning for it is very similar to file
and the interaction between the too quiet interesting as copy kinda
surfed as a fallback for file not being able to read the file. Both now
show a better error message as well as it was previously claiming to
have a hashsum mismatch, given that it couldn't read the file.
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
Based on a discussion with Niels Thykier who asked for Contents-all this
implements apt trying for all architecture dependent files to get a file
for the architecture all, which is treated internally now as an official
architecture which is always around (like native). This way arch:all
data can be shared instead of duplicated for each architecture requiring
the user to download the same information again and again.
There is one problem however: In Debian there is already a binary-all/
Packages file, but the binary-any files still include arch:all packages,
so that downloading this file now would be a waste of time, bandwidth
and diskspace. We therefore need a way to decide if it makes sense to
download the all file for Packages in Debian or not. The obvious answer
would be a special flag in the Release file indicating this, which would
need to default to 'no' and every reasonable repository would override
it to 'yes' in a few years time, but the flag would be there "forever".
Looking closer at a Release file we see the field "Architectures", which
doesn't include 'all' at the moment. With the idea outlined above that
'all' is a "proper" architecture now, we interpret this field as being
authoritative in declaring which architectures are supported by this
repository. If it says 'all', apt will try to get all, if not it will be
skipped. This gives us another interesting feature: If I configure a
source to download armel and mips, but it declares it supports only
armel apt will now print a notice saying as much. Previously this was a
very cryptic failure. If on the other hand the repository supports mips,
too, but for some reason doesn't ship mips packages at the moment, this
'missing' file is silently ignored (= that is the same as the repository
including an empty file).
The Architectures field isn't mandatory through, so if it isn't there,
we assume that every architecture is supported by this repository, which
skips the arch:all if not listed in the release file.
|
|
apt is an interactive command and the reasons we haven't this option set
for everything is mostly in keeping compatibility for a little while
longer to allow scripts to be changed if need be.
|
|
The manpage is also slightly updated to work better as a central hub to
push people from all angles into the right directions without writting a
book disguised as an error message.
|
