Debians commandline package manager https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=1.6_alpha2 2017-07-12T11:57:51Z 2017-07-12T11:57:51Z Julian Andres Klode jak@debian.org 2017-07-12T11:40:41Z urn:sha1:87274d0f22e1dfd99b2e5200e2fe75c1b804eac3 This makes it easier to see which headers includes what. The changes were done by running git grep -l '#\s*include' \ | grep -E '.(cc|h)$' \ | xargs sed -i -E 's/(^\s*)#(\s*)include/\1#\2 include/' To modify all include lines by adding a space, and then running ./git-clang-format.sh. 2017-06-28T17:18:47Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2017-05-28T11:24:33Z urn:sha1:96ebab48c25fcd1ee83729cdba4be8a6343a8766 This gives the repository owner a chance to explain why this change was needed – e.g. explaining the organisational changes or simply detailing the changes in the new release made. Note that this URI is also shown if the change is accepted, so it also draws attention to release notes of minor updates (if users watch apt output closely). 2017-06-28T17:18:47Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2017-04-12T15:39:06Z urn:sha1:081fbea14d12f79c8d91ce4fe1f1004c7bc08656 The value of Origin, Label, Codename and co can be used in user configuration from apts own pinning to unattended upgrades. A repository changing this values can therefore have serious effects on the behaviour of apt and other tools using these values. In a first step we will generate error messages for these changes now explaining the need for explicit confirmation and provide config options and commandline flags to accept them. 2017-06-26T21:31:15Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2017-05-28T17:18:30Z urn:sha1:d7c92411dc1f4c6be098d1425f9c1c075e0c2154 If we couldn't find an entry for a Sources file we would generate an error while for a Packages file we would silently skip it due to assuming it is missing because it is empty. We can do better by checking if the repository declares that it supports a component we want to get the file from and if not say so and hint at the user making a typo. An example were this helps is mozilla.debian.net which dropped the firefox-aurora component (as upstream did) meaning no upgrades until the user notices manually that the repository doesn't provide packages anymore. With this commit warnings are raised hopefully causing the user to investigate what is wrong (sooner). 2016-11-11T22:40:39Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-11-11T12:05:38Z urn:sha1:d0c7d4d6328418b7c9f434a3398e5f7e08b7359c A suite or codename entry in the Release file is checked against the distribution field in the sources.list entry that lead to the download of that Release file. This distribution entry can contain slashes in the distribution field: deb http://security.debian.org/debian wheezy/updates main However, the Release file may only contain "wheezy" in the Codename field and not "wheezy/updates". So a transformation needs to take place that removes the last / and everything that comes after (e.g. "/updates"). This fails, however, for valid cases like a reprepro snapshot where the given Codename contains slashes but is perfectly fine and doesn't need to be transformed. Since that transformation is essentially just a workaround for special cases like the security repository, it should be checked if the literal Codename without any transformations happened is valid and only if isn't the dist should be checked against the transformated one. This way special cases like security.debian.org are handled and reprepro snapshots work too. The initial patch was taken as insperationto move whole transformation to CheckDist() which makes this method more accepting & easier to use (but according to codesearch.d.n we are the only users anyhow). Thanks: Lukas Anzinger for initial patch Closes: 644610 2016-11-09T18:57:21Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-11-09T18:57:21Z urn:sha1:d96c997ebeab76f690564fc1c93a35b1a885adf5 Sometimes you should really act upon your todos. Especially if you have placed them directly in the code. Closes: 841874 2015-12-27T16:04:33Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-12-27T16:04:33Z urn:sha1:a628ca5256b4a2f3ae300697b17adf150b6e17b0 Debian has a Packages file for arch:all already, but the arch:any files contain arch:all packages as well, so downloading it would be a total waste of resources. Getting this solved is on the list of things to do, but it is also the hardest part – for index targets like Contents the situation is much easier and less server/client implementations are involved so we might not want to stall them. A repository can now declare via: No-Support-for-Architecture-all: Packages that even if an arch:all Packages exists, it shouldn't be downloaded, so that support for Contents files can be added now. See also 1dd20368486820efb6ef4476ad739e967174bec4 for the implementation of downloading arch:all index targets, which this is limiting. The field uses the name of the target from the apt configuration for simplicity and is negative by design as this field is intended to be supported/needed only for a "short" time (one or two Debian releases). While this commit theoretically supports any target, its expected to only see "Packages" as a value in reality. 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. 2015-09-14T13:22:18Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-09-11T19:02:19Z urn:sha1:830a1b8c9e9a26dc1101167ac66a75c444902c4d Reported-By: gcc -fsanitize=address -fno-sanitize=vptr Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-08-17T10:01:45Z Michael Vogt mvo@debian.org 2015-08-17T10:01:45Z urn:sha1:88a8975f156e452d9f3ebe76822b236e8962ebba