Debians commandline package manager https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=1.1 2015-11-25T14:20:10Z 2015-11-25T14:20:10Z Justin B Rye justin.byam.rye@gmail.com 2015-11-22T09:14:12Z urn:sha1:839603418384565a53d9aca7b23dbd7742e3ea77 Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-11-21T17:04:29Z Justin B Rye justin.byam.rye@gmail.com 2015-11-21T16:50:06Z urn:sha1:d04e44ac8177fc5b70ae0189bb5e437c2502f910 Reference mail: https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2015/11/msg00006.html 2015-11-21T12:47:19Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-11-21T12:47:19Z urn:sha1:abd6af5a1ce2c20a5742c5c3182dfadce10367ca In 8d041b4f we made apt figure out based on the last Release file it has if it should request a file or not given that the hashes changed or not. So if we have a last Release file and do a request, do not sent a Last-Modified header as we expect a change so much that a non-change would indeed be an error. The Last-Modified header is therefore at best ignored by the server, so sending it is just wasted effort. In the worst case as time is a fragile thing the server decides against sending us an update with the idea that we already have the latest content, which we know for a fact that we haven't. Given that we sent less information to the server our request is on its own also less identifiable as coming from a returning or new user. The disadvantage is that if we end up getting an old index file after getting a new Release file from another mirror the old mirror will not be able to tell us 'Hit', but instead sends us the complete file we discard, but both lets us end up with the same error class in the end, so the difference isn't big in practice. 2015-11-05T11:21:33Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-11-05T00:51:44Z urn:sha1:f01f5d911d6a9731893865bb1ec617c5038add3e This 'ignores' the component Release files you can find in Debian alongside the binary-* directories, which isn't exactly a common usecase, but it worked before, so lets support it again as this isn't worse than a valid Release file which is unsigned. Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-11-05T11:21:33Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-11-04T20:08:55Z urn:sha1:258b9e512c4001e806c5c0966acecd3d742ec6e9 Reported-By: cppcheck Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-11-04T17:42:28Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-11-02T17:49:52Z urn:sha1:ce1f3a2c616b86da657c1c796efa5f4d18c30c39 Unlinking /dev/null is bad, we shouldn't do that. Also, we should print at least a warning if we tried to unlink a file but didn't manage to pull it of (ignoring the case were the file is /dev/null or doesn't exist in the first place). This got triggered by a relatively unlikely to cause problem in pkgAcquire::Worker::PrepareFiles which would while temporary uncompressed files (which are set to keep compressed) figure out that to files are the same and prepare for sharing by deleting them. Bad move. That also shows why not printing a warning is a bad idea as this hide the error for in non-root test runs. Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-11-04T17:42:27Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-10-28T13:38:49Z urn:sha1:1dd20368486820efb6ef4476ad739e967174bec4 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. 2015-11-04T17:04:05Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-10-29T11:40:41Z urn:sha1:51818f26c784bb574dafc545e8ae320845e5e8fc Removals in the acquire progress can be pretty important, so a failure should be silently ignored, so we wrap our unlink call in a slightly more forgiving wrapper checking things. Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-11-04T17:04:05Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-10-29T11:38:50Z urn:sha1:3d1e34b0be262a611ae91a2c24b0f99de9671faf Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-11-04T17:04:01Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-10-15T07:35:52Z urn:sha1:002b1bc46b18e9d309d337ddb15a6ccdfb6c9dde The manpage is also slightly updated to work better as a central hub to push people from all angles into the right directions without writting a book disguised as an error message.