summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/test/integration/test-policy-pinning
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2015-12-14tagfile: Hardcode error message for out of range integer valuesJulian Andres Klode
This makes the test suite work on 32 bit-long platforms. Gbp-Dch: ignore
2015-12-14support regex and co in 'apt-cache policy $pkg' againDavid Kalnischkies
Regression of 1e064088bf7b3e29cd36d30760fb3e4143a1a49a (1.1~exp4) which moved code around and renamed methods heavily ending up calling the wrong method matching packagenames only instead of calling the full array. Most commands work with versions, so this managed to fly under the radar for quite a while. Closes: 807870
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.
2015-08-14Add integration test for Pin-Priority range checksJulian Andres Klode
Gbp-Dch: ignore
2015-08-13Remove an invalid fi from a testcaseJulian Andres Klode
Gbp-Dch: ignore
2015-08-13Fix integration tests for the removal of the Package pin outputJulian Andres Klode
This should make them work again.
2015-08-10Fix test case breakage from the new policy implementationJulian Andres Klode
Everything's working now.
2015-06-12store Release files data in the CacheDavid Kalnischkies
We used to read the Release file for each Packages file and store the data in the PackageFile struct even through potentially many Packages (and Translation-*) files could use the same data. The point of the exercise isn't the duplicated data through. Having the Release files as first-class citizens in the Cache allows us to properly track their state as well as allows us to use the information also for files which aren't in the cache, but where we know to which Release file they belong (Sources are an example for this). This modifies the pkgCache structs, especially the PackagesFile struct which depending on how libapt users access the data in these structs can mean huge breakage or no visible change. As a single data point: aptitude seems to be fine with this. Even if there is breakage it is trivial to fix in a backportable way while avoiding breakage for everyone would be a huge pain for us. Note that not all PackageFile structs have a corresponding ReleaseFile. In particular the dpkg/status file as well as *.deb files have not. As these have only a Archive property need, the Component property takes over this duty and the ReleaseFile remains zero. This is also the reason why it isn't needed nor particularily recommended to change from PackagesFile to ReleaseFile blindly. Sticking with the earlier is usually the better option.
2015-06-11show URI.Path in all acquire item descriptionsDavid Kalnischkies
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.
2015-05-11a pin of 1000 always means downgrade allowedDavid Kalnischkies
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.
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
2014-10-01Use Acquire::Allow{InsecureRepositories,DowngradeToInsecureRepositories}Michael Vogt
The configuration key Acquire::AllowInsecureRepositories controls if apt allows loading of unsigned repositories at all. The configuration Acquire::AllowDowngradeToInsecureRepositories controls if a signed repository can ever become unsigned. This should really never be needed but we provide it to avoid having to mess around in /var/lib/apt/lists if there is a use-case for this (which I can't think of right now).
2014-09-26test fixesMichael Vogt
2013-08-12add chronic-like testsuccess/testfailure helpersDavid Kalnischkies
For many commands the output isn't stable (like then dpkg is called) but the exitcode is, so this helper enhances the common && msgpass || msgfail by generating automatically a msgtest and showing the output of the command in case of failure instead of discarding it unconditionally, the later being chronic-like behaviour Git-Dch: Ignore
2011-09-15update the test to ensure that NotAutomatic and co is used alsoDavid Kalnischkies
if the archive is signed, but the signature can't be checked as the key is missing (debbugs #597301 - fix in r2105)
2011-08-22remove the caches in 'apt-get update', too, as they will beDavid Kalnischkies
invalid in most cases anyway
2010-10-13tests/integration/test-*: remove a bunch of "local" that are used outside ↵Michael Vogt
funtions (bash complains)
2010-09-14* apt-pkg/policy.cc:David Kalnischkies
- support 100-pinning in Release file with ButAutomaticUpgrades as requested by the backports crew (Closes: #596097) * apt-pkg/deb/deblistparser.cc: - overrule NotAutomatic in case of ButAutomaticUpgrades