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

Bug#720574: marked as done (libapt-pkg4.12: Inconsistency in reporting whether the package "apt" is essential)

Your message dated Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:23:38 +0200
with message-id <20150814222210.GA25098@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#720574: libapt-pkg4.12: Inconsistency in reporting whether the package "apt" is essential
has caused the Debian Bug report #720574,
regarding libapt-pkg4.12: Inconsistency in reporting whether the package "apt" is essential
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.)


-- 
720574: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=720574
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: libapt-pkg4.12
Version: 0.9.7.9
Severity: normal

Hi,
libapt-pkg has some code (introduced in commit 945099df10 I think) to treat the package "apt" as a special case and describe it as "Essential", so that a program using that library gets a result like this: 

$ python3
Python 3.2.3 (default, Feb 20 2013, 14:44:27)
[GCC 4.7.2] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import apt
>>> cache = apt.Cache()
>>> cache['apt'].essential
True
>>>
But according to "dpkg -s apt" or "apt-cache show apt", apt is not essential, i.e. there is no "Essential: yes" field.
I'm sure the special case code is there for a reason, but isn't it a bug for the library and the tools to return contradictory results? 

Many thanks.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.1
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii  debian-archive-keyring  2012.4
ii  gnupg                   1.4.12-7+deb7u1
ii  libapt-pkg4.12          0.9.7.9
ii  libc6                   2.13-38
ii  libgcc1                 1:4.7.2-5
ii  libstdc++6              4.7.2-5

apt recommends no packages.

Versions of packages apt suggests:
pn  apt-doc     <none>
ii  aptitude    0.6.8.2-1
ii  dpkg-dev    1.16.10
ii  python-apt  0.8.8.2
ii  synaptic    0.75.13
ii  xz-utils    5.1.1alpha+20120614-2

-- debconf-show failed

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 01:28:31PM +0100, J Cranberry wrote:
> Package: libapt-pkg4.12
> Version: 0.9.7.9
> Severity: normal
> 
> Hi,
> 
> libapt-pkg has some code (introduced in commit 945099df10 I think) to treat
> the package "apt" as a special case and describe it as "Essential", so that
> a program using that library gets a result like this:
> 
> $ python3
> Python 3.2.3 (default, Feb 20 2013, 14:44:27)
> [GCC 4.7.2] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
> >>> import apt
> >>> cache = apt.Cache()
> >>> cache['apt'].essential
> True
> >>>
> 
> But according to "dpkg -s apt" or "apt-cache show apt", apt is not
> essential, i.e. there is no "Essential: yes" field.
> 
> I'm sure the special case code is there for a reason, but isn't it a bug for
> the library and the tools to return contradictory results?

This is an internal implementation detail, to make sure that APT does not
remove itself. As such, all APT libraries take care of treating APT as
essential, while it is not really essential.

Closing.
-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

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

Be friendly, do not top-post, and follow RFC 1855 "Netiquette".
    - If you don't I might ignore you.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: