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

Bug#827915: marked as done (initial version number and colon in apt-get download and apt-get autoclean)

Your message dated Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:23:01 +0200
with message-id <20160623062301.GA30698@crossbow>
and subject line Re: Bug#827915: initial version number and colon in apt-get download and apt-get autoclean
has caused the Debian Bug report #827915,
regarding initial version number and colon in apt-get download and apt-get autoclean
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.)


-- 
827915: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827915
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apt
Version: 1.2.13
Severity: normal
Tags: patch

Hello,

When downloading a package which version contains an initial number
and colon, the saved file name must not include that part of the
version string.

apt-get autoclean removes files which version contains an initial
number and colon, but must not do it.

The attached code is my point of view to solve it,

Regards,
Jordi Pujol i Palomer

From: Jordi Pujol Palomer <jordipujolp@gmail.com>
Subject: apt-get autoclean, strip initial version number and colon
Date: 2016-04-28 16:03:29.613722454 +0200

--- apt-1.2.11-a/apt-pkg/clean.cc
+++ apt-1.2.11-b/apt-pkg/clean.cc	2016-04-28 16:03:29.613722454 +0200
@@ -119,8 +119,14 @@ bool pkgArchiveCleaner::Go(std::string D
 	    }
 	    
 	    // See if this version matches the file
-	    if (IsFetchable == true && Ver == V.VerStr())
-	       break;
+	    if (IsFetchable == true) {
+			if (Start = strchr((const char *)V.VerStr(), ':'))
+				Start++;
+			else
+				Start = V.VerStr();
+			if (strcmp(Ver.c_str(), Start) == 0)
+				break;
+		}
 	 }
 	 
 	 // We found a match, keep the file

From: Jordi Pujol Palomer <jordipujolp@gmail.com>
Subject: apt-get download, strip initial version number and colon
Date: 2016-05-02 08:03:13.887017907 +0200

--- apt-1.2.11-a/apt-pkg/acquire-item.cc
+++ apt-1.2.11-b/apt-pkg/acquire-item.cc	2016-05-02 08:03:13.887017907 +0200
@@ -2896,8 +2896,13 @@ pkgAcqArchive::pkgAcqArchive(pkgAcquire
 	 return;
             
       // Generate the final file name as: package_version_arch.foo
+      const char *V;
+      if (V = strchr((const char *)Version.VerStr(), ':'))
+            V++;
+      else
+            V = Version.VerStr();
       StoreFilename = QuoteString(Version.ParentPkg().Name(),"_:") + '_' +
-	              QuoteString(Version.VerStr(),"_:") + '_' +
+	              QuoteString(V,"_:") + '_' +
      	              QuoteString(Version.Arch(),"_:.") + 
 	              "." + flExtension(Parse.FileName());
    }

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 04:46:23PM +0200, Jordi Pujol Palomer wrote:
> When downloading a package which version contains an initial number
> and colon, the saved file name must not include that part of the
> version string.

Were does this "MUST NOT" requirement come from? Is that just your
opinion or are you quoting any RFC/policy/… document?


The number in front of the first colon is canonically named "epoch". If
it isn't there, it defaults to zero. So, version "1-1" and "0:1-1" are
the same, but "1:1-1" is not and applying your patches would mean any
epoch would suddently be equal to no epoch.

It is perhaps unlikely (but relatively common if two different
repositories are involved which ship the same stack, but with different
buildoptions), but nothing prevents (in fact, its kinda the point of
epochs to allow it) that a package is installed (and the downloaded deb
for this still residing in archives/) as version "1-1" and an upgrade
available as "1:1-1". APT (and users) would believe with your patch that
it has already downloaded "1:1-1" as a file with the version "1-1"
already exists. That would be very very wrong…


Don't get me wrong: Epochs are bad as they make everything more
complicated, they look ugly, the colon needs to be encoded for some
filesystems to store it (hello vfat) and all that, but they are an
integral part of the version number of a package and can't simple be
skipped over because we don't like them.  I am therefore closing this
report as not-a-bug as these patches would need an a lot stronger backup
than an out of the blue "MUST NOT" to be allowed to break existing
setups and I don't see where that backup would be coming from.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: