On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 03:58:00PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: >On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 01:06:08PM -0400, Sam Lidder wrote: >>>I've attached a patch which appends package version information to the >>>package names for apt-cache depends and rdepends. The patch is also >>>available here: >>> >>>https://code.launchpad.net/~sam-lidder/apt/debian-experimental >>>(revision 2249) >>> >>>Notes: >>>- version information is not displayed for virtual/non-real packages >>>- version is always printed, even if CompareOp is 0, so as to be >>> consistent with output of 'Dependencies' for 'apt-cache showpkg <pkg>' >> >> Hi Sam, >> >> Awesome - I was just about to start hacking on the apt-cache code to >> do this and found you'd beaten me to it! :-) > >Truth to be told: He did it even earlier as part of his GSoC proposal.
Ah, OK... :-) >> Apt maintainers - I need this fixed to allow me to fix #687949 in >> debian-cd, which is a serious bug affecting wheezy builds right >> now. Could you please prepare a build for upload with this patch >> added? If there's a worry about maybe breaking other users, maybe keep >> existing behaviour by default and add a "-v" or "--with-versions" >> flag to get the versions included? > >It is indeed a worry about breaking users. There is so much stuff outwhere >using apt-* in strange ways that nearly every change to the output usually >results in breaking at least one of them. I e.g. didn't know that debian-cd >scripts are using it … To be honest, I only worked this out while tracking down this bug - this deep section of the code seems to have been working fine ever since Raphael wrote it ~10 years ago! :-) >The other thing is that the generated output is less than stellar. >I think if we output something here it should be in the way we see >it in the Packages file and not intermixed some internal values … >Depends: awesome (0 (null)) >Depends: stuff (3 2-1) >Nobody knows what 0 and 3 are and they could possibly change any >given minute (with an ABI break of course) -- beside that this number >printed includes also other stuff (like the OR flag) and showpkg is kind >of a debug command, so "compatibility" with it isn't really needed. ACK. I was a little surprised to see the output format here. I've added support for parsing the versions in apt's internal format, by digging through source code to find the definitions. I can always switch that code back to parsing human-readable text, thought. >If you need it we can add it with -o APT::Cache::ShowVersion=1 as >Depends: awesome >Depends: stuff (<< 2-1) >I guess. -v is taken by --version; -V would be an option and very similar >to apt-get -V (--verbose-versions), but i don't think this needs to consume >a short flag which might be better used for activating a generally improved >version of the (r)depends commands (e.g. to enable showing the dependency >types in rdepends by default, too) with the necessary documentation … >but that is a bit much while in freeze. >-o flags on the other hand are cheap to add … Sure, that all makes sense to me. I'll need to use a locally-built apt-cache for now (as we build using squeeze), until we upgrade the build machine after the wheezy release. I've designed around coping with versions not being available - it will just fall back to the old behaviour anyway. Is apt happy to ignore -o flags it doesn't recognise, or will I have to add some detection here to cope with older versions? >Anyway, as this will be advertised as a debian-cd fix implemented in APT >to the release team, feel free to define the output you need and we will >see how to generate it. I am unable to read/write perl, so I don't know what >is easiest. (I can see in the code though that you should have a look at > --important, --no-recommends and similar flags to avoid doing the filtering > in perl; but I don't get what the code does in general …). That's fine. :-) Just adding versions in a sane manner (as you've suggested here) is great for me. Maybe post-wheezy I'll get on to investigating other changes for the sort_deps code, but right now is not a good time for major surgery! Thanks for the very quick response, it's appreciated. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org