| 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 should make them work again.
|
|
Everything's working now.
|
|
It is a rather strange sight that index items use SiteOnly which strips
the Path, while e.g. deb files are downloaded with NoUserPassword which
does not. Important to note here is that for the file transport Path is
pretty important as there is no Host which would be displayed by Site,
which always resulted in "interesting" unspecific errors for "file:".
Adding a 'middle' ground between the two which does show the Path but
potentially modifies it (it strips a pending / at the end if existing)
solves this "file:" issue, syncs the output and in the end helps to
identify which file is meant exactly in progress output and co as a
single site can have multiple repositories in different paths.
|
|
If the pin for a generic pin is 0, it get a value by strange looking
rules, if the pin is specific the rules are at least not strange, but
the value 989 is a magic number without any direct meaning… but both
never happens in practice as the parsing skips such entries with a
warning, so there always is a priority != 0 and the code therefore never
used.
|
|
The documentation says this, but the code only agreed while evaluating
specific packages, but not generics. These needed a pin above 1000 to
have the same effect.
The code causing this makes references to a 'second pesduo status file',
but nowhere is explained what this might stand for and/or what it was,
so we do the only reasonable thing: Remove all references and do as
documented.
|
|
We use test{success,failure} now all over the place in the framework, so
its only consequencial to do this in the situations in which we test for
a specific output as well.
Git-Dch: Ignore
|
|
We start your quest by using the version of a package applying to a
specific pin, but that version could very well be below the current
version, which causes APT to suggest a downgrade even if it is
advertised that it never does this below 1000.
Its of course questionable what use a specific pin on a package has
which has a newer version already installed, but reacting with the
suggestion of a downgrade is really not appropriated (even if its kinda
likely that this is actually the intend the user has – it could just as
well be an outdated pin) and as pinning is complicated enough we should
atleast do what is described in the manpage.
So we look out for the specific pin and if we haven't seen it at the
moment we see the installed version, we ignore the specific pin.
Closes: 543966
|
