Your message dated Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:32:43 +0100 with message-id <1342992763.13223.175.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> and subject line Re: Bug#682307: unblock: apt/0.9.7.2 has caused the Debian Bug report #682307, regarding unblock: apt/0.9.7.2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 682307: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682307 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: unblock: apt/0.9.7.2
- From: David Kalnischkies <kalnischkies@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:57:04 +0200
- Message-id: <CAAZ6_fAaHS2-CG7c63UrdtUCpvL5Qjfpa4DmxUNPdRqr5C_=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock X-Debbugs-Cc: deity@lists.debian.org Please unblock package apt The diff between 0.9.7.1 and 0.9.7.2 is (minus translation updates and manually-run testcases): apt-pkg/cachefilter.cc | 6 ------ apt-pkg/clean.cc | 5 +++-- apt-pkg/deb/deblistparser.cc | 3 ++- cmdline/apt-mark.cc | 16 ++++++++++++++-- debian/apt.cron.daily | 14 ++++++++------ ftparchive/writer.cc | 2 +- 6 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) The changes are denoted as follows in the changelog with some more comments regarding reason and possible regressions: (tl;dr: good reasons and low regression potential - just unblock ;) ) > * debian/apt.cron.daily: > - do not try to backup extended_states file if it doesn't > exist (Closes: #680287) (Technical an RC bug in the cronjob, hard to trigger in real life though.) > * ftparchive/writer.cc: > - handle the APT::FTPArchive::Packages::SHA512 option correctly instead > of overriding SHA256, thanks Christian Marillat! (Closes: #680252) (Classic typo: regression possibility is negative) > * cmdline/apt-mark.cc: > - arch:all packages are treated as arch:native packages, but dpkg > expects pkg:all for selections, so use the arch of the installed > version instead of the package structure if possible. > Thanks to Stepan Golosunov for the report! (Closes: #680041) APT claimed to be successful in holding the package back, even through it wasn't as dpkg just ignored the request. Could be really confusing for users … (Artefact from the interface changes in dpkg for multi-arch) > * apt-pkg/clean.cc: > - run autoclean against pkg:arch and not always against pkg:native as > this removes valid cache entries (Closes: #679371) Nasty if caches are shared (with network shares for example) or if autoclean (and downloading) is run by a/our cronjob. (Incomplete multi-arch awareness) > * apt-pkg/deb/deblistparser.cc: > - negative dependencies need to apply to all architectures, > but those with a specific architecture only apply to this one Specific architecture dependencies were introduced in 0.9.6. 'Conflicts: foo:amd64' would be interpreted as a conflict with package 'foo:amd64' on all configured architectures (=architecture becomes accidentally part of the name, hence no conflict will be found). > * apt-pkg/cachefilter.cc: > - remove architecture-specific arch to tuple expansion-rules as they lead > to the same tuples for different architectures (e.g. linux-arm for arm, > armel and armhf) while the dpkg-architecture code uses triples which > are different (in the first part, which we omit in our tuples), so e.g. > build-dep restrictions for armel ended up effecting armhf as well This bug effects "apt-get build-dep foo" and is present in squeeze as well. It was well hidden by the fact that the restrictions it would map together usually are used together – build-infrastructure has its own build- dependency resolution and if all else fails dpkg-checkbuilddeps would have intervened, so regression possibility is low. (Why these special mappings were in the code is so far unknown.) This also effects commandline parsing since 0.9.7 - which uncovered it: "apt-get install foo:armhf" and "apt-get install foo:armel" had the same result. ("Randomly" foo for armhf or armel, depending on the order of M-A configuration) Attached is a more complete diff (but still without translations), but if you want the complete diff or if you have any additional questions feel free to ask of course (just keep deity@ cc'ed please). unblock apt/0.9.7.2 As an aside, a few more translations have lined up and we are working on a few more targeted fixes, so we will surely annoy you with another request after this one. (We have also the "problem" that the documentation uses in various places the release codenames as examples [as the usage of the suite is potentially dangerous] and while we have a central place to switch the names we would need to know them first …) Thanks for your work & best regards David KalnischkiesAttachment: unblock-apt-0.9.7.1--0.9.7.2.diff
Description: Binary data
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: David Kalnischkies <kalnischkies@gmail.com>, 682307-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#682307: unblock: apt/0.9.7.2
- From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 22:32:43 +0100
- Message-id: <1342992763.13223.175.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
- In-reply-to: <CAAZ6_fAaHS2-CG7c63UrdtUCpvL5Qjfpa4DmxUNPdRqr5C_=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAAZ6_fAaHS2-CG7c63UrdtUCpvL5Qjfpa4DmxUNPdRqr5C_=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 2012-07-21 at 12:57 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > Please unblock package apt [...] > The changes are denoted as follows in the changelog > with some more comments regarding reason and possible regressions: > (tl;dr: good reasons and low regression potential - just unblock ;) ) Unblocked; thanks. Regards, Adam
--- End Message ---