Bug#998828: apt: man apt_preferences.d wrong definition of priorities

2021-11-09 Thread maxime . deroucy
On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 15:28 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > Records defined
> > using patterns in the Pin field other than "*" are treated like
> > specific-form records.
> [… vs …]
> > Records defined
> > using exactly "Package: *" are general-form, all the other are
> > specific-form records.
> 
> Aren't that two different ways of saying the same thing?
> 
> Could you give an example where the existing definition of
> priorities is wrong while yours is correct as per bug title?

The current statment mention the "Pin" field, but I think it's the
"Package" field.

`Pin: *` isn't valid.

Also the term "generic-form" is only used in this paragraf, while this
kind of record is called "general form" or "general-form" everywhere
else (if the "generic-form" is actualy equivalent to "general-form"…
which I am not 100% sure). It's confusing.

In fact, my proposition is maybe inaccurate ; to be safe it should be :

   The first specific-form record matching an available package version
   determines the priority of the package version. Failing that, the
   priority of the package is defined as the maximum of all priorities
   defined by general-form records matching the version. The difference
   between specific and general-form records are in section "The Effect
   of APT Preferences".
-- 
Regards
Maxime de Roucy



Bug#998828: apt: man apt_preferences.d wrong definition of priorities

2021-11-09 Thread David Kalnischkies
Hi,

On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 12:17:51PM +0100, maxime.dero...@gmail.com wrote:
> Records defined
> using patterns in the Pin field other than "*" are treated like
> specific-form records.
[… vs …]
> Records defined
> using exactly "Package: *" are general-form, all the other are
> specific-form records.

Aren't that two different ways of saying the same thing?

Could you give an example where the existing definition of
priorities is wrong while yours is correct as per bug title?


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Bug#998828: apt: man apt_preferences.d wrong definition of priorities

2021-11-08 Thread maxime . deroucy
Package: apt
Version: 2.2.4
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

In `man apt_preferences.d` :
> The first specific-form record matching an available package version
determines the priority of the package version. Failing that, the
priority of the package is defined as the maximum of all priorities
defined by generic-form records matching the version. Records defined
using patterns in the Pin field other than "*" are treated like
specific-form records.

>From what I found it should be :
> The first specific-form record matching an available package version
determines the priority of the package version. Failing that, the
priority of the package is defined as the maximum of all priorities
defined by general-form records matching the version. Records defined
using exactly "Package: *" are general-form, all the other are
specific-form records.

-- Package-specific info:

-- (no /etc/apt/preferences present) --


-- (no /etc/apt/preferences.d/* present) --


-- (/etc/apt/sources.list present, but not submitted) --


-- (no /etc/apt/sources.list.d/* present) --


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 11.0
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.14.16-arch1-1 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: unable to detect

Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii  adduser 3.118
ii  debian-archive-keyring  2021.1.1
ii  gpgv2.2.27-2
ii  libapt-pkg6.0   2.2.4
ii  libc6   2.31-13
ii  libgcc-s1   10.2.1-6
ii  libgnutls30 3.7.1-5
ii  libseccomp2 2.5.1-1
ii  libstdc++6  10.2.1-6
ii  libsystemd0 247.3-6

Versions of packages apt recommends:
ii  ca-certificates  20210119

Versions of packages apt suggests:
pn  apt-doc  
pn  aptitude | synaptic | wajig  
pn  dpkg-dev 
pn  gnupg | gnupg2 | gnupg1  
pn  powermgmt-base   

-- no debconf information