apt/test/integration/test-policy-pinning, branch master

Add test case for local-only packages pinned to never

2019-04-15T07:43:32Z

Test from the fix for the regression in trusty for LP #1821308.

Introduce experimental 'never' pinning for sources

2019-02-01T16:51:35Z

This allows disabling a repository by pinning it to 'never', which is internally translated to a value of -32768 (or whatever the minimum of short is). This overrides any other pin for that repository. It can be used to make sure certain sources are never used; for example, in unattended-upgrades. To prevent semantic changes to existing files, we substitute min + 1 for every pin-priority: . This is a temporary solution, as we are waiting for an ABI break. To add pins with that value, the special Pin-Priority "never" may be used for now. It's unclear if that will persist, or if the interface will change eventually.

error in update on Release information changes

2017-06-28T17:18:47Z

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.

restore pinning to min/max value of short

2016-04-25T14:30:43Z

Broken in the previous commit (69cea1ef2cfda3c4da79fd756a8edaf2be26998e). Adding a test and a comment to avoid future embarrassment. Git-Dch: Ignore Reported-By: Julian Andres Klode on IRC

properly parse comments in apt_preferences and deb822-style sources

2016-01-02T15:20:01Z

apt_preferences and deb822-style sources used the specialized class pkgUserTagSection to deal with comments before/after a given stanza, but it couldn't deal with comments in the stanza at all. codesearch suggests that nobody else does and a vastely superior way of working with potentially commented files is implemented now, so we can officially discourage the use of the old incomplete hack class.

tests: support spaces in path and TMPDIR

2015-12-19T22:04:34Z

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

tagfile: Hardcode error message for out of range integer values

2015-12-14T12:58:46Z

This makes the test suite work on 32 bit-long platforms. Gbp-Dch: ignore

support regex and co in 'apt-cache policy $pkg' again

2015-12-14T01:38:34Z

Regression of 1e064088bf7b3e29cd36d30760fb3e4143a1a49a (1.1~exp4) which moved code around and renamed methods heavily ending up calling the wrong method matching packagenames only instead of calling the full array. Most commands work with versions, so this managed to fly under the radar for quite a while. Closes: 807870

support arch:all data e.g. in separate Packages file

2015-11-04T17:42:27Z

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.

Add integration test for Pin-Priority range checks

2015-08-14T11:44:28Z

Gbp-Dch: ignore