| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For years I subconsciously thought this is wrong but ignored it:
$ LANG=C apt install -s
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Then I noticed:
$ LANG=C apt install -s -o dir::state::extended_states=/dev/null
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
That can't be! Then it really should be:
$ LANG=C apt install -s
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
This oddity seems to be in since the introduction of the auto bit in 2005
which makes this rather hard to solve in theory, but in practice no front
end seems to call the readStateFile method directly, so we might actually
be lucky.
The alternative would be to call Done in the calling method and again
at the end of readStateFile while dropping it from the current place,
but as that is more shuffling around it could be more upsetting for
other front ends. Not sure, but now that I have seen it, I want to have
it fixed one way or another… aptitude at least seems not to explode.
References: afb1e2e3bb580077c6c917e6ea98baad8f3c39b3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Our kernel autoremoval helper script protects the currently booted
kernel, but it only runs whenever we install or remove a kernel,
causing it to protect the kernel that was booted at that point in time,
which is not necessarily the same kernel as the one that is running
right now.
Reimplement the logic in C++ such that we can calculate it at run-time:
Provide a function to produce a regular expression that matches all
kernels that need protecting, and by changing the default root set
function in the DepCache to make use of that expression.
Note that the code groups the kernels by versions as before, and then
marks all kernel packages with the same version.
This optimized version inserts a virtual package $kernel into the cache
when building it to avoid having to iterate over all packages in the
cache to find the installed ones, significantly improving performance at
a minor cost when building the cache.
LP: #1615381
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This avoids the cost of setting up the function every time
we mark and sweep.
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Support marking all newly installed packages as automatically installed
See merge request apt-team/apt!110
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Add option '--mark-auto' to 'apt install' that marks all newly installed
packages as automatically installed.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu>
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
If the package providing the given solution is tagged already for
removal (or at least for "not installing") we can ignore this solution
as a possibility as it is not one, which means we can avoid exploring
the option and potentially forward the protected flag further if that
helps in reducing the possibilities to a single one.
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Marking a package for removal is fine if we know that we have to remove
that package, but if we are in an alternative branch we might not go
this route in the end and hence have a package pointlessly marked for
removal which isn't questioned later on.
We check if we are allowed to remove that package to avoid working on
the positive dependencies if not, but we mark them for removal only
after all the other dependencies are successfully resolved.
In an ideal world we would let the problemResolver do its job on them,
but the resolver might decide against doing the removal exploring
another option like the next alternative, which might be a good idea,
but is not the behaviour we had before, so that is the best we can do
for now without changing the resolver drastically.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
While we process the possible solutions we might modify other solutions
like discarding their candidates and such, so that then we reach them
they might no longer be proper candidates. We also try to drop
duplicates early on to avoid the simple cases of these which
test-explore-or-groups-in-markinstall triggers via its explicit
duplication but could also come via multiple provides.
It only worked previously as were ignoring current versions which
usually is okay expect if they are marked for removal and we want to
reinstate them so the ProblemResolver can decide which one later on.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Gbp-Dch: Ignore
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For speed reasons pkgDepCache initializes its state once and then has a
battery of update calls you have to invoke in the right order to update
the various states – all in the name of speed. In debug and/or
simulation mode we can sacrifice this speed for a bit of extra checking
though to verify that we haven't made some critical mistake like #961266.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It looks like hack and therefore I wanted this to be a very isolated
commit so we can find it & revert it easily if need be, but for now it
seems to work.
The idea is that Status is telling us how the candidate is in relation
to the current installed version which is used to figure out if a
package is "kept back" by the algorithm or not, but by discarding the
candidate version we loose this information.
Ideally we would keep better tabs on what we do to a package and why,
but for now that seems okayish. It will cause the wrong version to be
displayed though as if the package is installed the installed version
becomes the candidate and hence (installed => installed) is displayed.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If we have a negative dependency to deal with we prefer to install an
upgrade rather than remove the current version. That is why we split the
method rather explicitly in two in 57df273 but there is a case we didn't
react to: If we have seen the candidate before as a "satisfier" of this
negative dependency there is no point in trying to upgrade to it later
on. We keep that info by candidate discard if we can, but even if we
can't we can at least keep that info around locally.
This "fixes" (or would hide) the problem described in 04a020d as well as
you don't have to discard installations you never make.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For a (partially) installed package like the one MarkInstall operates on
at the moment we want to discard the candidate from, we have to first
remove the package from the internal state keeping to have proper broken
counts and such and only then reset the candidate version which is a
trivial operation in comparison.
Take a look at the testcase: Now, what is the problem? Correct,
git:i386. Didn't see that coming, right? It is M-A:foreign so apt tries
to switch the architecture of git here (which is pointless, it knows
that this won't work, but lets fix that in another commit) will
eventually realize that it can't install it and wants to discard the
candidate of git:i386 first removing the broken indication like it
should, removing the install flag and then reapplies the broken
indication: Expect it doesn't as it wants to do that over the candidate
version which the package no longer had so seemingly nothing is broken.
It is a bit of a hairball to figure out which commit it is exactly that
is wrong here as they are all influencing each other a bit, but >= 2.1
is an acceptable ballpark. Bisect says 57df273 but that is mostly a lie.
Closes: #961266
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The previous commit deals with negative, now we add the positive side of
things as well which makes this a recursive endevour. As we can push the
protected flag forward only if a single solution for a dependency exists
it is easy for trees to not get it, so if resolving becomes difficult it
won't help at all.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If we propagate protected e.g. due to a user request we should also act
upon (at the moment) satisfied negative dependencies so that the
resolver knows that installing this package later is not an option.
That the problem resolver is trying bad solutions is a bug by
itself which existed before and after and should be worked on.
Closes: #960705
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For positive dependencies this isn't giving much as the dependency
should already be satisfied by such a provider if its protectiveness
would help, but it doesn't hurt to check them first and for negative
dependencies it means that we check those first which are the most
likely to fail to be removed – which is a good idea.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reducing the scope of these helpers might allow us to move them
elsewhere and share them or it is a rather pointless exercise,
we will see where it leads us to later on.
Gbp-Dch: Ignore
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We exit early from installing dependencies of a package only if it is
not a user request to avoid polluting the state with installs which
might not be needed (or detrimental even) for alternative choices.
We do continue with installing dependencies though if it is a user
request as it will improve error reporting for apt and can even help
aptitude not hang itself so much as we trim the problem space down for
its resolver dealing with all the easy things.
Similar things can be said about the testcase I have short-circuit
previously… keep going test, do what you should do to report errors!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
apt marks packages coming from the commandline among others
as protected to ensure the various resolver parts do not fiddle
with the state of these packages. aptitude (and potentially others)
do not so the state is modified (to a Keep which for uninstalled means
it is not going to be installed) due to being uninstallable before
the call fails – basically reverting at least some state changes the
call made before it realized it has to fail, which is usually a good
idea, except if users expect you to not do it.
They do set the FromUser option though which has beside controlling
autobit also gained the notion of "the user is always right" over time
and can be used for this one here as well preventing the state revert.
References: 0de399391372450d0162b5a09bfca554b2d27c3d
Reported-By: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@debian.org> on IRC
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Strange things happen if while resolving the dependencies of a package
said dependencies want to remove the package. The allow-scores test e.g.
removed the preferred alternative in favor of the last one now that they
were exclusive. In our or-group for Recommends we would "just" not
statisfy the Recommends and for Depends we engage the ProblemResolver…
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In normal upgrade scenarios this is no problem as the orgroup member
will be marked for upgrade already, but on a not fully upgraded system
(or while you operate on a different target release) we would go with our
usual "first come first serve" approach which might lead us to install
another provider who comes earlier – bad if the providers conflict.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a package is protected and has a dependency satisfied only by a single
package (or conflicts with a package) this package must be part of the
solution and so we can help later actions not exploring dead ends by
propagating the protected flag to these "pseudo-protected" packages.
An (obscure) bug this can help prevent (to some extend) is shown in
test-apt-never-markauto-sections by not causing irreversible autobit
transfers.
As a sideeffect it seems also to help our crude ShowBroken to display
slightly more helpful messages involving the packages which are actually
in conflict.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
MarkDelete is not recursive as MarkInstall is and we can not conflict
with ourselves anyhow, so we can move the unavoidable deletes before
changing the state of the package in question avoiding the need for the
state update in case of conflicts we can not deal with (e.g. the package
conflicts with an explicit user request).
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Should be easier to move the code bits around then and it helps in
documenting a bit what the blocks do and how they interact (or not).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
We do pretty much the same in IsInstallOk, but here we have already set
the state, so we have to unroll the state as well to sort-of replicate
the state we were in before this MarkInstall failed.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This fixes no bugs per se, but the idea is to delay more costly changes
and check easier things first. It e.g. inhibits the moving of the
autobit until we are sure that this MarkInstall call isn't going to
fail (e.g. because a dependency isn't satisfiable).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
MarkInstall only looks at the first alternative in an or-group which has
a fighting chance of being satisfiable (= the package itself satisfies
the dependency, if it is installable itself is not considered).
This is "hidden" for Depends by the problem resolver who will try
another member of the or-group later, but Recommends are not a problem
for it, so for them the alternatives are never further explored.
Exploring the or-group in MarkInstall seems like the better choice for
both types as that frees the problem resolver to deal with the hard
things like package conflicts.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We reseted the candidate for installed packages back to the version
which is installed if one of the (critical) dependencies of it is not
statisfiable, but we can do the same for non-installed packages by
discarding the candidate which beside slightly helping the resolver also
improves error messages generated by apt as a sideeffect.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
No user-visible change as it effects mostly code comments and
not a single error message, manpage or similar.
Reported-By: codespell & spellintian
Gbp-Dch: Ignore
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When running with Debug::pkgAutoRemove=yes, explain why certain packages
are being marked, either because they're marked essential/important or
because they match the blacklist from APT::NeverAutoRemove.
This should help troubleshoot cases where autoremove is not proposing
removal of packages expected to be up for removal.
Tested manually with `apt-get autoremove -o Debug::pkgAutoRemove=yes`.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Prompted-by: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Reported-By: codespell & spellintian
Gbp-Dch: Ignore
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If we perform candidate switching in requests like "apt install foo/bar"
we should first check if the dependencies of foo from release bar are
already satisfied by what is already installed before checking if the
candidate (or switched candidate) would.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
As a follow up to the last commit, let's replace APT_CONST
with APT_PURE everywhere to clean stuff up.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This file isn't compressed by default, but it might be compressed by a
bugreporter and uncompressing it is extra work apt could do just as well
on the fly as needed just like it does for the dpkg/status file.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This makes it easier to see which headers includes what.
The changes were done by running
git grep -l '#\s*include' \
| grep -E '.(cc|h)$' \
| xargs sed -i -E 's/(^\s*)#(\s*)include/\1#\2 include/'
To modify all include lines by adding a space, and then running
./git-clang-format.sh.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Including cacheiterators.h before pkgcache.h fails because
pkgcache.h depends on cacheiterators.h.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Reported-By: codespell & spellintian
Gbp-Dch: Ignore
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Most of them in (old) code comments. The two instances of user visible
string changes the po files of the manpages are fixed up as well.
Gbp-Dch: Ignore
Reported-By: spellintian
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The existing cleanup was happening only for packages which had a status
change (install -> uninstalled) which is the most frequent but no the
only case – you can e.g. set autobits explicitly with apt-mark.
This would leave stanzas in the states file declaring a package to be
manually installed – which is the default value for a package not listed
at all, so we can just as well drop it from the file.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Traditionally all providers are protected providing something as apt
can't know which of them is actually really providing the functionality
for the user ensuring that we don't propose the removal of used stuff,
but that is of course also keeping stuff around which could be removed.
That can cause the collection of multiple old providers until the
provided package is itself no longer needed (e.g. out-of-tree kernel
modules). We combat this by marking providers only from the newest
source package version so that old providers built by older versions of
the same source package can be garbage collected.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As the previous commit, this shouldn't change behavior at all, but
beside being more explicit and perhaps faster its also considerably
shorter (granted, mostly by if0-block elimination).
Gbp-Dch: Ignore
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Piling everything in a single if statement always made my head wobble,
but it hasn't even a benefit as the most common case of a package which
isn't installed passes all of the old if and lands in the non-existent
else-part of the inner if. So beside a subjective cleanup of what goes
on this implementation should also be a bit faster.
No change in behavior should be present.
Gbp-Dch: Ignore
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If we can't read the old file we can't just move forward as that would
discard potentially discard old data (especially other fields). We let
it fail only after we are done writing the new file so a user has the
chance to look into and merge the new data (which is otherwise
discarded).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The old prettyprinters have only access to the struct they pretty print,
which isn't enough usually as we want to know for a package also a bit
of state information like which version is the candidate.
We therefore need to pull the DepCache into context and hence use a
temporary struct which is printed instead of the iterator itself.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Using Pkg.CandVersion() here is wrong as its implementation will return
a candidate based just on the default policy settings ignoring user
preferences and otherwise set candidates (aka: it sidesteps the
pkgDepCache).
This causes M-A:same libraries to be detected as screwed even through
they aren't, so that they end up being kept back.
Reported-By: Felipe Sateler on IRC
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
