Debians commandline package manager https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=1.2.6 2016-01-08T14:40:01Z 2016-01-08T14:40:01Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-01-02T22:15:15Z urn:sha1:83758aed35c3eec66008b2ec01957c8e1cb129b5 Having a hardcoded list of compression types here doesn't really provide us with anything beside added complexity each time someone adds a new compression type. That we don't need to be that specific is evident by Contents and Translation-* matchers which are a lot more generic and didn't generate problems anyhow. 2015-11-29T16:00:11Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-11-29T15:57:58Z urn:sha1:f6777222f82f6279c104138216b0e5e50d8caa67 Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-11-29T12:12:38Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-11-29T12:12:38Z urn:sha1:90986d4dbbd38e2e89f986d621e301304210452e Passing function pointers around while working on this was very icky, but if weak symbols are too much to ask for… Reverts "do not use "-Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions" during the build to avoid breakage" aka a5fc9be36211a290a7abc3ca2a8bf98943bc1f57. 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 2015-10-30T15:44:27Z urn:sha1:e2ea6b63d333e6999d855a026a005726067c38ac In the meantime the strange warnings disappeared, so we can get back to showing them – and fix the one occurance which creeped in in the meantime. Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-11-04T17:04:05Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-10-27T08:57:26Z urn:sha1:8561c2fedae26aecd8ba758a5e7ef686ba1243f3 The general idea is: A small paragraph on the tool itself as a description, a list of the most used (!= all) commands available in the tool, a remark where to find more information on the tool and its commands (aka: in the manpage) and finally a common block referring to even more manpages. In exchange options are completely omitted from the output as well as deprecated or obscure commands. (Better) Information about them is available in the manpages anyway and the few options which were listed before were also the least interesting ones (-o -c -q and co are hardly of interest for someone totally new looking to find info by asking for help and anyone with a bit of experience doesn't need this short list. Those would need a list of options applying to the command they call, but they are too numerous and command specific to list them sanely in this context. 2015-11-04T17:04:04Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-10-26T15:50:21Z urn:sha1:41d39345bdc31cb9b8be057cd678aa2890830437 Git-Dch: Ignore 2015-11-04T17:04:04Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-10-26T10:42:32Z urn:sha1:6079b276a959086ff18302cab752b6d7cfe5ad9f Its not as simple as I initially thought to abstract this enough to make it globally usable, so lets not pollute global namespace with this for now. Git-Dch: Ignore