Debians commandline package manager https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=1.4.3 2017-01-19T14:59:38Z 2017-01-19T14:59:38Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2017-01-19T14:14:19Z urn:sha1:93cff633a830e222693fc0f3d78e6e534d1126ee Most of them in (old) code comments. The two instances of user visible string changes the po files of the manpages are fixed up as well. Gbp-Dch: Ignore Reported-By: spellintian 2016-11-09T16:50:50Z Chris Leick c.leick@vollbio.de 2016-11-09T16:42:40Z urn:sha1:2c30cf43f1c4ab96f3eca849d7eb4923ffed40b1 2016-06-29T10:17:41Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-06-29T07:16:53Z urn:sha1:8e99b22c31eb47d0422e9a69e83dc99bb315ded8 Julian noticed on IRC that I fall victim to a lovely false friend by calling referring to a 'planer' all the time even through these are machines to e.g. remove splinters from woodwork ("make stuff plane"). The term I meant is written in german in this way (= with a single n) but in english there are two, aka: 'planner'. As that is unreleased code switching all instances without any transitional provisions. Also the reason why its skipped in changelog. Thanks: Julian Andres Klode Gbp-Dch: Ignore 2016-06-27T09:57:12Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-06-06T15:58:00Z urn:sha1:8d1cb6da6e21302c654da3f09de3975af7e4a11f A rather special need option, but the internal planer supports this and we have a testcase for it & sometimes it is hit (as a bug through). The option itself mostly serves as a reminder for implementors that they should be careful with removes and especially temporary removes if they perform any. 2016-06-27T09:57:12Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-06-06T13:04:42Z urn:sha1:a21aca106ce93e8a2841d4a2c7a8432f9dfc7b6d APT has 3 modes: no immediate configuration, all packages are configured immediately and its default mode of configuring essentials and pseudo-essentials immediately only. While this seems like a job of different planers at first, it might be handy to have it as an option, too, in case a planer (like apts internal one) supports different modes where the introduction of individual planers would be counter intuitive. 2016-06-27T09:57:12Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-05-28T13:40:59Z urn:sha1:f74d99c6a78caafdc6e32d8cb135683b7154795c Testing the current implementation can benefit from being able to be feed an EIPP request and produce a fully compliant response. It is also a great test for EIPP in general. 2016-06-27T09:43:09Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-05-14T16:07:12Z urn:sha1:7b197262212f49b3b355b1124edf2ba9adb73411 The very first step in introducing the "external installation planer protocol" (short: EIPP) as part of my GSoC2016 project. The description reads: APT-based tools like apt-get, aptitude, synaptic, … work with the user to figure out how their system should look like after they are done installing/removing packages and their dependencies. The actual installation/removal of packages is done by dpkg with the constrain that dependencies must be fulfilled at any point in time (e.g. to run maintainer scripts). Historically APT has a super micro-management approach to this task which hasn't aged that well over the years mostly ignoring changes in dpkg and growing into an unmaintainable mess hardly anyone can debug and everyone fears to touch – especially as more and more requirements are tacked onto it like handling cycles and triggers, dealing with "important" packages first, package sources on removable media, touch minimal groups to be able to interrupt the process if needed (e.g. unattended-upgrades) which not only sky-rocket complexity but also can be mutually exclusive as you e.g. can't have minimal groups and minimal trigger executions at the same time. 2016-06-10T08:49:41Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-06-09T20:58:06Z urn:sha1:2202a8a05766586c60217d43193416dbd84be027 2016-06-04T17:53:54Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-06-04T17:53:54Z urn:sha1:71608330b9b2bd95a0481ca53cd58b584fd61e42 EDSP had a WriteSolution method to write out the entire solution based on the inspection of a given pkgDepCache, but that is rather inflexible both for EDSP itself and for other EDSP like-protocols. It seems better to use a smaller scope in printing just a single stanza based on a given version as there is more reuse potential. 2016-05-20T12:18:36Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-05-06T14:46:51Z urn:sha1:6dcae298f972eb20223838f0e1dc376c44bc9cc3 Its more space and runtime efficient to use a boolean set instead of a CacheSet-based implementation. Git-Dch: Ignore