Control: reassign -1 apt-file Cyril Brulebois: > Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> (2016-05-26): >> The apt-file udeb search seems to work fine for me after three steps: > > IMHO that's two too many. > >> * Enable the udeb fetching >> - e.g. edit /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/50apt-file.conf >> - Find "deb::Contents-udeb" and set its "DefaultEnabled" to true > > While I can understand why dsc would be disabled by default, I'm not > sure why udeb would need to go the same way; those are tiny. > I believed the number of people interested in results from d-i packages would be limited to d-i developers (as regular users should not install udebs on their machines). If you think non-developer users will often have need for Contents-udeb's, I will consider adding them. But if it is developer-only, I think it is better if Contents-udeb is opt-in even if they are tiny. >> * Run apt update (or apt-file update) >> >> * Pass -I udeb when doing search in the udeb Contents >> - apt-file search -I udeb efivars.ko >> - The implicit default value for -I being "deb" and therefore the >> regular Contents files > > I'd rather have a search happening across all available types, and then > being able to restrict the same inside a given component… > I will look into making the default search indices configurable and a means to search through all indices (without explicitly naming all of them). >> [...] > The only udeb occurrence in the changelog since: > | apt-file (2.5.4) unstable; urgency=medium > | > | * Apply patch from Cyril Brulebois to support searching for > | files in "udeb" packages. This requires "debian-installer" > | entries in the sources.list and are represented by the pseudo > | "udeb-<arch>" architecture (e.g. "udeb-amd64"). > | (Closes: #766295) > | > | -- Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:05:36 +0200 > > is the following entry: > | - Special uses of "-a" to search in Source packages or > | udebs have been replaced by "--index-names". > > which isn't entirely obvious. > I am sorry it was insufficient. For future reference, what would you have expected for this case? > Besides having lost a few hours digging into apt, it would be very much > appreciated if we wouldn't have to enable debian-installer bits in > various places… > > > KiBi. > Apologies for the lost time. Though as said earlier, I feel d-i bits are special case and will probably have to remain opt-in (at least on a fetching level). Thanks, ~Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature