summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/test/integration/test-apt-update-file
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2015-11-05drop privileges in copy:// method as we do for file://David Kalnischkies
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
2015-11-04support arch:all data e.g. in separate Packages fileDavid Kalnischkies
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.
2015-09-14tests: use SHA1 checksum only by default in testsDavid Kalnischkies
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
2015-06-09do not request files if we expect an IMS hitDavid Kalnischkies
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.
2015-06-09rework hashsum verification in the acquire systemDavid Kalnischkies
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().
2014-10-20check lists/ content in tests doing rollbackDavid Kalnischkies
Git-Dch: Ignore
2014-09-23fix testsMichael Vogt
2014-09-19test/integration/test-apt-update-file: improve testMichael Vogt
2014-09-17improve test for commit daff4aMichael Vogt
2014-09-17Fix regression for file:/// uris from CVE-2014-0487Michael Vogt
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().