summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/test/integration/test-bug-683786-build-dep-on-virtual-packages
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
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.
2015-09-14implement dpkgs vision of interpreting pkg:<arch> dependenciesDavid Kalnischkies
How the Multi-Arch field and pkg:<arch> dependencies interact was discussed at DebConf15 in the "MultiArch BoF". dpkg and apt (among other tools like dose) had a different interpretation in certain scenarios which we resolved by agreeing on dpkg view – and this commit realizes this agreement in code. As was the case so far libapt sticks to the idea of trying to hide MultiArch as much as possible from individual frontends and instead translates it to good old SingleArch. There are certainly situations which can be improved in frontends if they know that MultiArch is upon them, but these are improvements – not necessary changes needed to unbreak a frontend. The implementation idea is simple: If we parse a dependency on foo:amd64 the dependency is formed on a package 'foo:amd64' of arch 'any'. This package is provided by package 'foo' of arch 'amd64', but not by 'foo' of arch 'i386'. Both of those foo packages provide each other through (assuming foo is M-A:foreign) to allow a dependency on 'foo' to be satisfied by either foo of amd64 or i386. Packages can also declare to provide 'foo:amd64' which is translated to providing 'foo:amd64:any' as well. This indirection over provides was chosen as the alternative would be to teach dependency resolvers how to deal with architecture specific dependencies – which violates the design idea of avoiding resolver changes, especially as architecture-specific dependencies are a cornercase with quite a few subtil rules. Handling it all over versioned provides as we already did for M-A in general seems much simpler as it just works for them. This switch to :any has actually a "surprising" benefit as well: Even frontends showing a package name via .Name() [which doesn't show the architecture] will display the "architecture" for dependencies in which it was explicitely requested, while we will not show the 'strange' :any arch in FullName(true) [= pretty-print] either. Before you had to specialcase these and by default you wouldn't get these details shown. The only identifiable disadvantage is that this complicates error reporting and handling. apt-get's ShowBroken has existing problems with virtual packages [it just shows the name without any reason], so that has to be worked on eventually. The other case is that detecting if a package is completely unknown or if it was at least referenced somewhere needs to acount for this "split" – not that it makes a practical difference which error is shown… but its one of the improvements possible.
2015-03-16test exitcode as well as string equalityDavid Kalnischkies
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
2014-05-07fix testsMichael Vogt
2012-08-05ensure that the right architecture is used for cross-dependencies inDavid Kalnischkies
cases we have to choose a provider by defaulting on host-arch instead of build-arch
2012-08-04improve the check for purely virtuals as provided packages aren'tDavid Kalnischkies
purely virtual and shouldn't error out cause of that
2012-08-04* cmdline/apt-get.cc:David Kalnischkies
- error out on (unsatisfiable) build-deps on purly virtual packages instead of ignoring these dependencies; thanks to Johannes Schauer for the detailed report! (Closes: #683786)