Bug#966462: apt: apt build-dep --download ... installs packages
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:14:12PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 1.8.2.1
> Severity: normal
>
> The behavior of "apt build-dep --download FOO" confusingly proceeds to
> install the build-deps of FOO. Seems like I wanted --download-only
> instead.
>
> The apt man page doesn't appear to even document the existence of "apt
> build-dep", or the --download flag.
>
> From a short dialog on IRC:
>
> 11:40 < vagrantc> TIL apt build-dep --download FOO ... installs the
> packages rather than just downloading them
> 11:42 < tumbleweed> sounds like a bug?
> 11:44 < _jwilk> Weird. --download-only does the right thing.
> 11:46 < tumbleweed> and that is what's in the manpage
> 11:47 < tumbleweed> is --download the inverse of --no-download then?
> 11:48 < vagrantc> i think i got the same with -d
> 11:48 < tumbleweed> nope , -d seems to do the right thing
> 11:49 < vagrantc> yes, i suppose it sounds like a bug
> 11:49 < vagrantc> e.g. it shouldn't work with unsupported options ...
> 11:49 < tumbleweed> I could imagine that that option has an effect when
> the config file sets the equivalent of --no-download
> 11:49 < tumbleweed> but I'm guessing
> 11:53 < vagrantc> right ...
> 11:54 < _jwilk> Not every --no-foo has a --foo counterpart. For example,
> there's --no-act, but --act is not a thing. So at the minimum
> the existence of --download should be documented, IMHO.
This technically true but slightly missing the point. There is an
inverse of --no-act, but it's --no-no-act, perhaps because of
implementation details for making it an alias of the *positive*
--simulate option. IMO that's one of the two real bugs.
> So I'm guessing the --download option needs to be documented, at
> least...
This is the other bug; the manpage just isn't overly helpful in how it
documents all the options. It always documents the option you need to
change the default, and expects you to work out based on:
> For boolean options you can override the config file by using
> something like -f-,--no-f, -f=no or several other variations.
that the opposite form exists (except for the --no-act weirdness). It's
consistent, but not always helpful. I think it would be best to just
list both options explicitly for everything, then searching always finds
it and there's never any doubt.
Jess
Reply to: