| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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well be an outdated pin) and as pinning is complicated enough we should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
|
