<feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
<title>apt/test, branch 1.2.9</title>
<subtitle>Debians commandline package manager</subtitle>
<id>https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=1.2.9</id>
<link rel='self' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=1.2.9'/>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/'/>
<updated>2016-03-27T00:09:14Z</updated>
<entry>
<title>Do not mark packages for keep that we want to remove</title>
<updated>2016-03-27T00:09:14Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>jak@debian.org</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-26T23:20:05Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=6df5632313e9ce77c47ee4bcf6e32a028c4534d0'/>
<id>urn:sha1:6df5632313e9ce77c47ee4bcf6e32a028c4534d0</id>
<content type='text'>
If the package is marked for removal, keep it marked for
removal and do not mark it for keep. If we mark it for keep,
we some how later get to a different stage where it is marked
for unpack instead of removal.

In the example in the bug report, we would get a:

 SmartUnPack maas-region-controller-min:amd64 (replace version 2.0.0~alpha3+bzr4810-0ubuntu1 with Segmentation fault

maas-region-controller-min:amd64 was marked for removal, but
we changed it to keep and somehow it thinks that this is to
be replaced now instead of removed (probably because the
InstallVer != CandidateVer [with InstallVer = 0]).

This fixes a regression introduced in release 1.2.7, commit:
  0390edd5452b081f8efcf412f96d535a1d959457

Reported-by: LaMont Jones on IRC
LP: #1562402
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>drop confusing comma from no strong hash message</title>
<updated>2016-03-25T08:31:42Z</updated>
<author>
<name>David Kalnischkies</name>
<email>david@kalnischkies.de</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-25T08:31:42Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=a2025a9a307bf4796e90623b002a7fa80ae814ef'/>
<id>urn:sha1:a2025a9a307bf4796e90623b002a7fa80ae814ef</id>
<content type='text'>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>handle gpgv's weak-digests ERRSIG</title>
<updated>2016-03-22T00:58:45Z</updated>
<author>
<name>David Kalnischkies</name>
<email>david@kalnischkies.de</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-22T00:26:29Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=08b7761a251a36fa65cbe022a86c51d7f091a88d'/>
<id>urn:sha1:08b7761a251a36fa65cbe022a86c51d7f091a88d</id>
<content type='text'>
Our own gpgv method can declare a digest algorithm as untrusted and
handles these as worthless signatures. If gpgv comes with inbuilt
untrusted (which is called weak in official terminology) which it e.g.
does for MD5 in recent versions we should handle it in the same way.

To check this we use the most uncommon still fully trusted hash as a
configureable one via a hidden config option to toggle through all of
the three states a hash can be in.
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>properly check for "all good sigs are weak"</title>
<updated>2016-03-21T21:47:17Z</updated>
<author>
<name>David Kalnischkies</name>
<email>david@kalnischkies.de</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-21T17:47:10Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=8fa99570816d3a644a9c4386c6a8f2ca21480329'/>
<id>urn:sha1:8fa99570816d3a644a9c4386c6a8f2ca21480329</id>
<content type='text'>
Using erase(pos) is invalid in our case here as pos must be a valid and
derefenceable iterator, which isn't the case for an end-iterator (like
if we had no good signature).
The problem runs deeper still through as VALIDSIG is a keyid while
GOODSIG is just a longid so comparing them will always fail.

Closes: 818910
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>tests: reenable basic auth test and add @ in username</title>
<updated>2016-03-19T08:48:44Z</updated>
<author>
<name>David Kalnischkies</name>
<email>david@kalnischkies.de</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-18T10:37:31Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=28b2efcb190edd97b802ac9055eaf417f141f724'/>
<id>urn:sha1:28b2efcb190edd97b802ac9055eaf417f141f724</id>
<content type='text'>
On launchpad #1558484 a user reports that @ in the authentication tokens
parsing of sources.list isn't working in an older (precise) version. It
isn't the recommended way of specifying passwords and co (auth.conf is),
but we can at least test for regressions (and in this case test at all…
who was that "clever" boy disabling a test with exit……… oh, nevermind.

Git-Dch: Ignore
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>cachefile: Only set members that were initialized successfully</title>
<updated>2016-03-19T06:19:24Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>jak@debian.org</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-19T00:56:38Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=f40fdaa43271edf98b80c08e20f401b5da591501'/>
<id>urn:sha1:f40fdaa43271edf98b80c08e20f401b5da591501</id>
<content type='text'>
Otherwise, things will just start failing later down the stack,
because (a) the lazy getters do not check if building was successful
and (b) any further getter call would return the invalid object
anyway.

Also initialize VS in pkgCache to nullptr by default.

Closes: #818628
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>test framework: Pass -n to lsof to speed up finding the https port</title>
<updated>2016-03-17T11:49:03Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>jak@debian.org</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-17T11:49:03Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=6970f6e6c73116e7c5b488eefe81cd4de98c9170'/>
<id>urn:sha1:6970f6e6c73116e7c5b488eefe81cd4de98c9170</id>
<content type='text'>
There is no point in resolving all addresses to their names, this
just seriously slows the setup phase down. So just pass -n to not
resolve names anymore.

Gbp-Dch: ignore
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>test-acquire-same-file-multiple-times: Run failing test up to 10 times</title>
<updated>2016-03-17T11:32:19Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>jak@debian.org</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-17T11:28:51Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=c030cc931ebfb7228801e5b63f3fc32852825da2'/>
<id>urn:sha1:c030cc931ebfb7228801e5b63f3fc32852825da2</id>
<content type='text'>
This should make the test less flaky and hopefully fix the failure
on Ubuntu's armhf CI nodes.

Gbp-Dch: ignore
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Make test-apt-download-progress less flaky</title>
<updated>2016-03-17T10:59:32Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>jak@debian.org</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-17T10:56:31Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=dea8713142383aed6906f93e773329f8487d39b1'/>
<id>urn:sha1:dea8713142383aed6906f93e773329f8487d39b1</id>
<content type='text'>
The test is a bit flaky. In order to get it less flaky, reduce
the speed in each run. To compensate for issues, start with a
higher speed level. Also increase the number of runs to 10.

Furthermore, http get the same multiple-run loop, and the log
files are changed to indicate the protocol being tested, as it's
not obvious which one fails if it fails in quiet mode.

Gbp-Dch: ignore
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>do not strip epochs from state version strings</title>
<updated>2016-03-16T22:29:45Z</updated>
<author>
<name>David Kalnischkies</name>
<email>david@kalnischkies.de</email>
</author>
<published>2016-03-16T21:32:48Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=a38cec81d349525c447004ef8fe9dc942c8bd9bb'/>
<id>urn:sha1:a38cec81d349525c447004ef8fe9dc942c8bd9bb</id>
<content type='text'>
The epoch stripping in this code is done since day one, but in other
places we show a version epochs are not stripped. If epochs are present
in packages they tend to be an important information which we can't just
drop and especially can't drop "sometimes" as that confuses users and
tools alike – so even if removing code in use for (close to) 18 years
feels wrong, it is probably the right choice for consistency.

Closes: 818162
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
