Debians commandline package manager https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=2.9.1 2016-07-22T14:05:09Z 2016-07-22T14:05:09Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2016-07-20T16:38:38Z urn:sha1:70bef3257a4dc7751444db8dadedd207bd24ab35 The tests changes the sources.list and the modification time of this file is considered while figuring out if the cache can be good. Usually this isn't an issue, but in that case we have the cache generation produce warnings which appear twice in this case. Gbp-Dch: Ignore 2015-12-19T22:04:34Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-12-15T16:20:26Z urn:sha1:3abb6a6a1e485b3bc899b64b0a1b7dc2db25a9c2 This doesn't allow all tests to run cleanly, but it at least allows to write tests which could run successfully in such environments. 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. 2015-08-30T20:50:55Z David Kalnischkies david@kalnischkies.de 2015-08-30T20:34:28Z urn:sha1:3090ae6972fd0e15767a96708c248f3ab87502f2 Multiple targets downloading the same file is bad™ as it leads us to all sorts of problems like the acquire system breaking or simply a problem of which settings to use for them. Beside that this is most likely a mistake and silently ignoring it doesn't help the user realizing his mistake… On the other hand, we have 'duplicates' which are 'created' by how we create indextargets, so we have to prevent those from being created to but do not emit a warning for them as this is an implementation detail. And then, there is the absolute and most likely user mistake: Having the same target(s) activated in multiple entries.