apt/test, branch 2.5.5

make ?installed pattern match installed version only when narrowed

2023-01-13T11:27:55Z

This is the correct behavior, but it was overlooked when aptitude patterns where ported. I remember wondering about this, but I checked the aptitude code and saw a check that CurrentVer != 0 or something and then apparently did not notice another implementation for version matching.

Merge branch 'pu/clean-apt-key-tmp' into 'main'

2022-10-31T10:43:17Z

Actually delete temporary apt-key.*.asc helper files See merge request apt-team/apt!266

Actually delete temporary apt-key.*.asc helper files

2022-10-31T10:18:13Z

During development there was an if (0) there for debugging purposes that unfortunately stayed in and caused files to accumulate. LP: #1995247

Merge branch 'feature/optional-dpkg-status' into 'main'

2022-10-28T18:33:06Z

Allow apt to run if no dpkg/status file exists See merge request apt-team/apt!257

Merge branch 'pu/phased-updates-fixes-2022-09-23' into 'main'

2022-09-28T15:13:12Z

phased update improvements See merge request apt-team/apt!262

full-upgrade: Mark phased upgrades for keep before anything else

2022-09-28T14:32:44Z

By marking them at the end, we might make other decisions that depend on the new phased updates, confusing the solver. Run the marking at the start too. The EDSP test file from Jeremy was modified to include Machine-ID and Phased-Update-Percentage fields and then filtered to mostly exclude packages irrelevant to the test case by running grep-dctrl \( -FRequest "EDSP 0.5" -o -FInstalled yes \ -oFPhased-Update-Percentage 10 \) \ -a --not -FArchitecture i386 LP: #1990586

Check state of dependency, not dependee in dependency keep back

2022-09-28T14:32:44Z

When iterating over I's dependencies (which are called Pkg), we accidentally checked if I was Protected() instead of Pkg when deciding whether Pkg can be kept back. LP: #1990684

Merge branch 'fix/install-pkg-order' into 'main'

2022-09-21T10:48:54Z

Respect users pkg order on `apt install` for resolving See merge request apt-team/apt!256

interactive-helper: Undefine _FORTIFY_SOURCE

2022-09-17T03:07:40Z

This ensures that it compiles when clang compiler is passing -DFORTIFY_SOURCES=2 Signed-off-by: Khem Raj

Respect users pkg order on `apt install` for resolving

2022-09-02T21:37:58Z

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.