apt/apt-pkg, branch 3.1.14Debians commandline package managerhttps://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=3.1.142026-01-23T11:04:31Zvariants: Do not report unsupported variants in repositories2026-01-23T11:04:31ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2026-01-23T11:03:04Zurn:sha1:49e80c2d9061372e0ec697be43bcba4c451b7752
We configure all variants the CPU supports as active, but repositories
usually do not provide all of them, so let's not be noisy.
why: Render info about all providers on virtual packages2026-01-20T13:07:15ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2026-01-20T13:04:20Zurn:sha1:34876ed2e5cdf504e2a4f9721486d279ae5f3be6
Refactor code into a doOne helper lambda, and then add loop
over the providers to use it.
This fixes a crash seen by Benjamin in a nice way than just
failing :)
Reported-by: Benjamin Drung
solver3: Ensure rule-of-3 memory safety for ContiguousCacheMap2026-01-05T21:20:24ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2026-01-04T16:25:38Zurn:sha1:5bdd21f915d1af832e9d3b874ddbd3ba2a178a06solver3: Modernize std::find() to std::ranges::contains2026-01-05T21:20:24ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2025-12-29T20:26:24Zurn:sha1:62fa3858d12f163de7db81f6e2be770e39783238
Where applicable
solver3: Add a strange assertion2026-01-05T21:20:24ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2025-12-29T15:47:20Zurn:sha1:f02f90021c255ef3aa578e00758cbc62e7fc82dd
I do not know why I don't hit this
solver3: Remove Push() and refactor Solve()2026-01-05T21:20:24ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2025-05-20T11:13:45Zurn:sha1:f8dd5ea23c6a7fccf643329c50ae1f11f48b1a09
This method is no longer needed technically speaking, we should
use Assume() instead. It turns out that there is a slight bug in
the propagation and some clauses that are unit end up on the heap
rather than having been propagated away, so we temporarily need
to keep an if for that around.
To accomodate the switch from Push() to Assume() we need to make
sure that the work item is pushed to our trail *after* we
have assumed it, such that reverting pushes it back to the work
heap.
Refactor the code to consistently use Assume() rather than supporting
Enqueue(), this vastly simplifies things. This is not fully accurate
in the current model and leads to unnecessary decision levels, since
sometimes we seem to be reaching unit clauses here.
This preserves traversal order by first removing the item from the
heap and then adding it back if we need to solve it again.
macros: Introduce must_succeed() macro2026-01-05T21:20:24ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2025-12-29T11:04:22Zurn:sha1:6ceaa78088ebdaea6cb887a7e8066fc29e0f984d
This is like assert() but never compiled out so can be used with
function calls that have side effects.
solver3: Re-use existing error message code in Solve()2026-01-05T21:20:24ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2025-12-28T20:42:32Zurn:sha1:d0643f993d3c6c42ea10d5ce3a02d964b7693a7f
We can just re-use Enqueue() here to produce our conflict
message why am I being silly and duplicate this.
solver3: Rename depth to level2026-01-05T21:20:24ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2025-12-28T15:59:17Zurn:sha1:ee82f420e7a303b5d92302134401e465b386de94
Matches the rename of depth() to decisionLevel() at a shorter
name.
solver3: Rename decision to assignment2026-01-05T21:20:24ZJulian Andres Klodejak@debian.org2025-12-28T15:56:28Zurn:sha1:21d099878ed8c34f3b13747bcec380e0402e57a3
The previous use of decision here conflicted with the use
of decision level and the general notion of having made a
decision, because the assignment might have been propagated
as a matter of fact.