[buildd-tools-devel] Bug#606278: Bug#606278: Bug#606278: aptitude resolver is completely broken in 0.60.6

[Roger Leigh]

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:19:44PM +0200, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> On trečiadienis 08 Gruodis 2010 13:06:23 Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > > Ok, the latter is because you removed a key option (that I added some
> > > > time ago) from aptitude command line in
> > > > 80f811184d7c7b06a6a5ec8d646b1eac015dffa2. That's:
> > > > 
> > > > '-o', "Aptitude::ProblemResolver::Hints::KeepDummy=reject
> > > > $dummy_pkg_name
> > > > 
> > > > :UNINST",
> > > 
> > > I removed this because it no longer seemed necessary when installing
> > > the package directly from a local archive.  It shouldn't be a
> > > candidate for removal if we explicitly asked for its installation?
> > 
> > The patch I attached in my other mail should solve all the other
> > issues.
> > 
> > - dummy packages are created correctly
> > - local archive created correctly
> > - archive signing key created correctly
> > - archive signed correctly
> > - dummy packages install from archive correctly
> > 
> > I'll add back the above aptitude option if it's still required, but if
> > you could test the attached patch and let me know if there are any
> > remaining problems, that would be great.
> 
> /tmp is fixed and sbuild now tells me when it is generating a key (which is 
> good). But now I have another nitpick. The new way of installing dependencies 
> means that `apt-get update` is run twice (once for core-dummy and once for 
> package-dummy). This might not be always desirable (e.g. when rebuilding the 
> package repeatedly from the same aptcache). Also, --apt-update option became 
> redundant, didn't it?

Certainly for the apt and aptitude resolvers; for the internal resolver,
it's still useful.

Is it possible to request an update of specific archive components,
so that we don't need to do a complete fetch of everything?  If we
could update the local archive only, that would be ideal.

> > If you still find this option
> > is required for correct functioning, I'll add it back.
> 
> It is necessary, see below.

OK, thanks for the explanation.  I've added this back.


Thanks,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/attachments/20101208/380018ff/attachment-0001.pgp>