Re: birtney changes

[Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>]

Anthony Towns wrote:
> Yo,

Heh. So much for the "working out when to do -foo%bar etc" being the 
easy part.

# for src in testing.sources:
#       if src in upgrademe:
#               rem_sources = unstable
#               rem_packages = unstablepkgs
#       else:
#               rem_sources = testing
#               rem_packages = None

So, we need to look at each package; and for the one's were upgrading we 
want to compare the "kept around" packages in testing we want to compare 
against the source/related packages in unstable, not testing.

#       src_bin_cur = [{},{}]
#       src_arch_cur = [{},{}]

So, obviously a list of two hashes. The first hash is for when the 
"non-current" packages, the second is for the "current" packages. 
They're accessed as src_*_cur[False] or src_*_cur[True], and should be 
read as "sources that (are | aren't) current".

The hash takes a package or an arch, and gives you a hash of 
arches/packages where the pairing is current/non-current as appropriate.

Simple, right?

#       srcv = rem_sources.get_version(src)

What srcv we're working towards.

#       for arch in arches:

#               rem_bins = []
#               if rem_packages:
#                       rem_bins = rem_packages.binaries(src, arch):

Binaries that will be upgraded. Hrm, horribly named.

#               for b in testing.binaries(src, arch):

So, let's look at the packages that could potentially be out of date.

#                   if b in rem_bins: # will be upgraded anyway
#                       continue

We assume upgraded packages will be up to date. Not necessarily true, 
but it'll be caught later so whatever.

#                   n = same_source(testing[arch].get_sourcever(b),srcv)

Is the package (going to be) up to date?

#                   src_bin_cur[n].set_default(b, {})
#                   src_bin_cur[n][b][arch] = 1
#                   src_arch_cur[n].set_default(arch, {})
#                   src_arch_cur[n][arch][b] = 1

Add an entry to the appropriate hash, creating the subhash if necessary.

#                   if n and not rem_bins.has_key(b):
#                       print "XXX WARNING CAN'T DEAL"

Drat, this is still not the right test for the un-handle-able special 
case mentioned in the previous mail. Horrible. I guess the test has to 
go somewhere else entirely :(

Anyway, once we've collected all that info for all arches...

#       bins_to_remove = []
#       undone_arch = {}

We start working out which binaries we have to remove specially, and 
which architectures need further ood removals done.

#       for b in src_bin_cur[False].keys():

First we process all the out of date binaries.

#               if not src_bin_cur[True].has_key(b):
#                   bins_to_remove.append("-%s%%%s" % (src, b))

Is this binary up to date on any architecture? If not, then it can be 
removed entirely.

#               else:
#                   for a in src_bin_cur[True][b].keys():
#                       undone_arch[a] = 1

Otherwise, this arch will have to be processed specially, next.

Really, all this could be done with the per-arch tests, but it seems 
better to remove "libfoo0" on all architectures simultaneously to me, 
when it needs to be removed on all architectures anyway.

#       #XXX not yet implemented:
#       #for a in undone_arch.keys():
#       #       bins_to_remove.append("-%s/%s" % (src, a)

Pretty obvious. The "-foo/i386" thing hasn't been implemented elsewhere 
yet is all (doop_source, britney-py.c, maybe dpkg.c).

#       if src in upgrademe:
#               hidden[src] = bins_to_remove
#       else:
#               upgrademe.extend(bins_to_remove)

And with all that done, we either do them directly, or as soon as "src" 
has been done.

FYI, only; this was mostly for my benefit. Haven't tried testing it as 
the leading hashes might have indicated, and I think I saw a couple of 
syntax errors anyway :)

Cheers,
aj