[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Rewrite of apt-show-versions in C++ using APT API



(deity@lists.debian.org is CCed)

Hi Christoph,

as you might be aware, I am currently rewriting apt-show-versions
in C++ for integration into APT itself in Jessie. The current state
can be found in a git repository at:
    http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/jak/apt-show-versions.git
    git://anonscm.debian.org/users/jak/apt-show-versions.git

Please let me know what you think about it. You can also find me in
the #debian-apt channel on OFTC for real-time communication.

Reasons
=======
One user complained that apt-show-versions is too slow. The rewrite
now takes 90 - 100ms, whereas apt-show-versions takes more than
1 seconds. Support for multi-arch is another reason.

Goal
====
Merge the rewrite into APT after the wheezy release, and provide
a transitional apt-show-versions package.

Backwards Compatibility
=======================
For the following options behaviour changes:

  -nh                Replaced by -n, as we use APT's command-line parser
  -stf|--status-file Removed. Did not work anyway.
  -ld|--list-dir     Removed. Did not work anyway.
  -r|--regex         Removed. Every argument containing .?+*|[^$ is
                     considered a regular expression
  -R|--regex-all     Only arguments considered regular expressions (as
                     above) are treated as regular expressions
  -a|--allversions   Does not know which releases are used on the
                     computer and just prints all available sources
                     instead -- at least for now, I'd like to get this
                     fixed.

I think that this is a reasonable amount of breakage.

Otherwise, the behaviour should be identical to apt-show-version's
or better (in terms of multi-arch, or Bug#613965).

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

Attachment: pgpXlRXfNmh55.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: