Debians commandline package manager https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=2.5.3 2022-09-02T21:37:58Z 2022-09-02T21:37:58Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2022-09-02T09:07:58Z urn:sha1:e1f332324f81b589561a9d9bce8a55d4895f26ec The command line is evaluated in two steps: First all packages given are marked for install and as a second step the resolver is started on all of them in turn to get their dependencies installed. This is done so a user can provide a non-default choice on the command line and have it respected regardless of where on the command line it appears. On the other hand, the order in which dependencies are resolved can matter, so instead of using a "random" order, we now do this in the order given on the command line, so if you e.g. have a meta package pulling in non-default choices and mention it first the choices are respected predictably instead of depending on first appearance of the package name while creating the binary cache. I might have "broken" this more than a decade ago while introducing the reworked command line parsing for Multi-Arch, which also brought in the split into the two steps mentioned above which was the far more impactful 'respect user choice' change. This one should hardly matter in practice, but as the tests show, order can have surprising side effects. 2022-09-02T20:32:59Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2022-08-31T14:08:54Z urn:sha1:009cf61122b7a0ac22b541035a26e6092c9ac529 Reported-By: gcc Gbp-Dch: Ignore 2022-07-11T14:37:35Z Julian Andres Klode julian.klode@canonical.com 2022-07-08T11:37:41Z urn:sha1:e481022470322b50a3289d2397b42b6eeacfc6e7 Because the auto installer now also marks other binaries in the package for upgrade, we do need to run it or we don't mark those for upgrade. 2021-11-27T10:22:38Z Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi 2021-11-03T22:08:07Z urn:sha1:01eed4234440d82fc52c8186cf4268517bcd28bc 2021-11-17T16:21:03Z Julian Andres Klode julian.klode@canonical.com 2021-11-17T16:20:29Z urn:sha1:21cc694f55de7caede8dcef3831236b6ca855cd7 Let's make this one step harder. 2021-07-01T09:34:04Z Julian Andres Klode julian.klode@canonical.com 2021-07-01T09:34:04Z urn:sha1:690f6191a4332123a912c812a19a37cef253e90c We just used the pointer returned which might be nullptr, properly call BuildSourceList() and check the result first. Closes: #990518 2021-04-29T08:28:08Z Julian Andres Klode jak@debian.org 2021-04-29T08:28:08Z urn:sha1:a6cb741a2cd1fa132705f8f5644872fc9708fb68 Count uninstallable packages in "not upgraded" See merge request apt-team/apt!169 2021-04-26T11:00:24Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2021-03-18T16:37:49Z urn:sha1:d6f3458badf2cfea3ca7de7632ae31daff5742be An interactive tool like aptitude needs these flags current far more often than we do as a user can see them in apt only in one very well defined place – the autoremove display block – so we don't need to run it up to four times while a normal "apt install" is processed as that is just busywork. The effect on runtime is minimal, as a single run doesn't take too long anyhow, but it cuts down tremendously on debug output at the expense of requiring some manual handholding. This is opt-in so that aptitude doesn't need to change nor do we need to change our own tools like "apt list" where it is working correctly as intended. A special flag and co is needed as we want to prevent the ActionGroup inside pkgDepCache::Init to be inhibited already so we need to insert ourselves while the DepCache is still in the process of being built. This is also the reason why the debug output in some tests changed to all unmarked, but that is fine as the marking could have been already obsoleted by the actions taken, just inhibited by a proper action group. 2021-04-25T14:25:57Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2021-03-06T13:12:01Z urn:sha1:f90b892e6acc0ca725811ef0dd9be3fed66c444f If a first step of the solver can figure out that a package is uninstallable it might reset the candidate so that later steps are prevented from exploring this dead end. While that helps the resolver it can confuse the display of the found solution as this will include an incorrect count of packages not upgraded in this solution. It was possible before, but happens a fair bit more with the April/May resolver changes last year so finally doing proper counting is a good idea. Sadly this is a bit harder than just getting the number first and than subtracting the packages we upgraded from it as the user can influence candidates via the command line and a package which could be upgraded, but is removed instead shouldn't count as not upgraded as we clearly did something with it. So we keep a list of packages instead of a number which also help in the upgrade cmds as those want to show the list. Closes: #981535 2021-04-23T10:26:46Z Julian Andres Klode julian.klode@canonical.com 2021-04-23T08:36:18Z urn:sha1:dc11a4422d99cb49817c827b9f827617b5880600 This enables hooks to output additional information.