| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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.
|
|
This is mostly a small speedup for the testcases, but it is also handy
to document which tests actually deal with a specific hash compared to
those which 'just' need some hash which can be important while adding
new hashes.
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
If we have a file on disk and the hashes are the same in the new Release
file and the old one we have on disk we know that if we ask the server
for the file, we will at best get an IMS hit – at worse the server
doesn't support this and sends us the (unchanged) file and we have to
run all our checks on it again for nothing. So, we can save ourselves
(and the servers) some unneeded requests if we figure this out on our
own.
|
|
Having every item having its own code to verify the file(s) it handles
is an errorprune process and easy to break, especially if items move
through various stages (download, uncompress, patching, …). With a giant
rework we centralize (most of) the verification to have a better
enforcement rate and (hopefully) less chance for bugs, but it breaks the
ABI bigtime in exchange – and as we break it anyway, it is broken even
harder.
It shouldn't effect most frontends as they don't deal with the acquire
system at all or implement their own items, but some do and will need to
be patched (might be an opportunity to use apt on-board material).
The theory is simple: Items implement methods to decide if hashes need to
be checked (in this stage) and to return the expected hashes for this
item (in this stage). The verification itself is done in worker message
passing which has the benefit that a hashsum error is now a proper error
for the acquire system rather than a Done() which is later revised to a
Failed().
|
|
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do not run ReverifyAfterIMS() for local file URIs as this will
causes apt to mess around in the file:/// uri space. This is
wrong in itself, but it will also cause a incorrect verification
failure when the archive and the lists directory are on different
partitions as rename().
|
