You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

test-acquire-binary-all 2.4 KiB

support arch:all data e.g. in separate Packages file Based on a discussion with Niels Thykier who asked for Contents-all this implements apt trying for all architecture dependent files to get a file for the architecture all, which is treated internally now as an official architecture which is always around (like native). This way arch:all data can be shared instead of duplicated for each architecture requiring the user to download the same information again and again. There is one problem however: In Debian there is already a binary-all/ Packages file, but the binary-any files still include arch:all packages, so that downloading this file now would be a waste of time, bandwidth and diskspace. We therefore need a way to decide if it makes sense to download the all file for Packages in Debian or not. The obvious answer would be a special flag in the Release file indicating this, which would need to default to 'no' and every reasonable repository would override it to 'yes' in a few years time, but the flag would be there "forever". Looking closer at a Release file we see the field "Architectures", which doesn't include 'all' at the moment. With the idea outlined above that 'all' is a "proper" architecture now, we interpret this field as being authoritative in declaring which architectures are supported by this repository. If it says 'all', apt will try to get all, if not it will be skipped. This gives us another interesting feature: If I configure a source to download armel and mips, but it declares it supports only armel apt will now print a notice saying as much. Previously this was a very cryptic failure. If on the other hand the repository supports mips, too, but for some reason doesn't ship mips packages at the moment, this 'missing' file is silently ignored (= that is the same as the repository including an empty file). The Architectures field isn't mandatory through, so if it isn't there, we assume that every architecture is supported by this repository, which skips the arch:all if not listed in the release file.
5 years ago
support arch:all data e.g. in separate Packages file Based on a discussion with Niels Thykier who asked for Contents-all this implements apt trying for all architecture dependent files to get a file for the architecture all, which is treated internally now as an official architecture which is always around (like native). This way arch:all data can be shared instead of duplicated for each architecture requiring the user to download the same information again and again. There is one problem however: In Debian there is already a binary-all/ Packages file, but the binary-any files still include arch:all packages, so that downloading this file now would be a waste of time, bandwidth and diskspace. We therefore need a way to decide if it makes sense to download the all file for Packages in Debian or not. The obvious answer would be a special flag in the Release file indicating this, which would need to default to 'no' and every reasonable repository would override it to 'yes' in a few years time, but the flag would be there "forever". Looking closer at a Release file we see the field "Architectures", which doesn't include 'all' at the moment. With the idea outlined above that 'all' is a "proper" architecture now, we interpret this field as being authoritative in declaring which architectures are supported by this repository. If it says 'all', apt will try to get all, if not it will be skipped. This gives us another interesting feature: If I configure a source to download armel and mips, but it declares it supports only armel apt will now print a notice saying as much. Previously this was a very cryptic failure. If on the other hand the repository supports mips, too, but for some reason doesn't ship mips packages at the moment, this 'missing' file is silently ignored (= that is the same as the repository including an empty file). The Architectures field isn't mandatory through, so if it isn't there, we assume that every architecture is supported by this repository, which skips the arch:all if not listed in the release file.
5 years ago
support arch:all data e.g. in separate Packages file Based on a discussion with Niels Thykier who asked for Contents-all this implements apt trying for all architecture dependent files to get a file for the architecture all, which is treated internally now as an official architecture which is always around (like native). This way arch:all data can be shared instead of duplicated for each architecture requiring the user to download the same information again and again. There is one problem however: In Debian there is already a binary-all/ Packages file, but the binary-any files still include arch:all packages, so that downloading this file now would be a waste of time, bandwidth and diskspace. We therefore need a way to decide if it makes sense to download the all file for Packages in Debian or not. The obvious answer would be a special flag in the Release file indicating this, which would need to default to 'no' and every reasonable repository would override it to 'yes' in a few years time, but the flag would be there "forever". Looking closer at a Release file we see the field "Architectures", which doesn't include 'all' at the moment. With the idea outlined above that 'all' is a "proper" architecture now, we interpret this field as being authoritative in declaring which architectures are supported by this repository. If it says 'all', apt will try to get all, if not it will be skipped. This gives us another interesting feature: If I configure a source to download armel and mips, but it declares it supports only armel apt will now print a notice saying as much. Previously this was a very cryptic failure. If on the other hand the repository supports mips, too, but for some reason doesn't ship mips packages at the moment, this 'missing' file is silently ignored (= that is the same as the repository including an empty file). The Architectures field isn't mandatory through, so if it isn't there, we assume that every architecture is supported by this repository, which skips the arch:all if not listed in the release file.
5 years ago
support arch:all data e.g. in separate Packages file Based on a discussion with Niels Thykier who asked for Contents-all this implements apt trying for all architecture dependent files to get a file for the architecture all, which is treated internally now as an official architecture which is always around (like native). This way arch:all data can be shared instead of duplicated for each architecture requiring the user to download the same information again and again. There is one problem however: In Debian there is already a binary-all/ Packages file, but the binary-any files still include arch:all packages, so that downloading this file now would be a waste of time, bandwidth and diskspace. We therefore need a way to decide if it makes sense to download the all file for Packages in Debian or not. The obvious answer would be a special flag in the Release file indicating this, which would need to default to 'no' and every reasonable repository would override it to 'yes' in a few years time, but the flag would be there "forever". Looking closer at a Release file we see the field "Architectures", which doesn't include 'all' at the moment. With the idea outlined above that 'all' is a "proper" architecture now, we interpret this field as being authoritative in declaring which architectures are supported by this repository. If it says 'all', apt will try to get all, if not it will be skipped. This gives us another interesting feature: If I configure a source to download armel and mips, but it declares it supports only armel apt will now print a notice saying as much. Previously this was a very cryptic failure. If on the other hand the repository supports mips, too, but for some reason doesn't ship mips packages at the moment, this 'missing' file is silently ignored (= that is the same as the repository including an empty file). The Architectures field isn't mandatory through, so if it isn't there, we assume that every architecture is supported by this repository, which skips the arch:all if not listed in the release file.
5 years ago
support arch:all data e.g. in separate Packages file Based on a discussion with Niels Thykier who asked for Contents-all this implements apt trying for all architecture dependent files to get a file for the architecture all, which is treated internally now as an official architecture which is always around (like native). This way arch:all data can be shared instead of duplicated for each architecture requiring the user to download the same information again and again. There is one problem however: In Debian there is already a binary-all/ Packages file, but the binary-any files still include arch:all packages, so that downloading this file now would be a waste of time, bandwidth and diskspace. We therefore need a way to decide if it makes sense to download the all file for Packages in Debian or not. The obvious answer would be a special flag in the Release file indicating this, which would need to default to 'no' and every reasonable repository would override it to 'yes' in a few years time, but the flag would be there "forever". Looking closer at a Release file we see the field "Architectures", which doesn't include 'all' at the moment. With the idea outlined above that 'all' is a "proper" architecture now, we interpret this field as being authoritative in declaring which architectures are supported by this repository. If it says 'all', apt will try to get all, if not it will be skipped. This gives us another interesting feature: If I configure a source to download armel and mips, but it declares it supports only armel apt will now print a notice saying as much. Previously this was a very cryptic failure. If on the other hand the repository supports mips, too, but for some reason doesn't ship mips packages at the moment, this 'missing' file is silently ignored (= that is the same as the repository including an empty file). The Architectures field isn't mandatory through, so if it isn't there, we assume that every architecture is supported by this repository, which skips the arch:all if not listed in the release file.
5 years ago
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970
  1. #!/bin/sh
  2. set -e
  3. TESTDIR="$(readlink -f "$(dirname "$0")")"
  4. . "$TESTDIR/framework"
  5. setupenvironment
  6. configarchitecture 'amd64'
  7. buildsimplenativepackage 'foo-1' 'all' '2' 'unstable'
  8. buildsimplenativepackage 'foo-2' 'amd64' '2' 'unstable'
  9. setupaptarchive --no-update
  10. msgmsg 'Releasefile with Architectures field and all included'
  11. testsuccess apt update
  12. cp rootdir/tmp/testsuccess.output aptupdate.output
  13. testsuccess grep '^Get.* all Packages ' aptupdate.output
  14. testequal 'foo-1
  15. foo-2' aptcache pkgnames foo-
  16. listcurrentlistsdirectory > lists.before
  17. testsuccess grep '_binary-all_Packages' lists.before
  18. configarchitecture 'amd64' 'i386'
  19. testsuccessequal "All packages are up to date.
  20. N: Skipping acquire of configured file 'main/binary-i386/Packages' as repository 'file:$(readlink -f ./aptarchive) unstable InRelease' doesn't support architecture 'i386'" apt update -o quiet::NoProgress=1
  21. testfileequal lists.before "$(listcurrentlistsdirectory)"
  22. testequal 'foo-1
  23. foo-2' aptcache pkgnames foo-
  24. rm -rf rootdir/var/lib/apt/lists
  25. msgmsg 'Releasefile with Architectures field but without all'
  26. getarchitecturesfromreleasefile() { echo "$(getarchitectures)"; }
  27. generatereleasefiles
  28. signreleasefiles
  29. testsuccessequal 'All packages are up to date.' apt update -o quiet::NoProgress=1
  30. cp rootdir/tmp/testsuccess.output aptupdate.output
  31. testfailure grep '^Get.* all Packages ' aptupdate.output
  32. testequal 'foo-2' aptcache pkgnames foo-
  33. configarchitecture 'amd64'
  34. testsuccess apt update
  35. cp rootdir/tmp/testsuccess.output aptupdate.output
  36. testfailure grep '^Get.* all Packages ' aptupdate.output
  37. testequal 'foo-2' aptcache pkgnames foo-
  38. rm -rf rootdir/var/lib/apt/lists
  39. msgmsg 'Releasefile without Architectures field'
  40. getarchitecturesfromreleasefile() { echo -n ''; }
  41. generatereleasefiles
  42. signreleasefiles
  43. testsuccess apt update
  44. cp rootdir/tmp/testsuccess.output aptupdate.output
  45. testsuccess grep '^Get.* all Packages ' aptupdate.output
  46. testequal 'foo-1
  47. foo-2' aptcache pkgnames foo-
  48. # apt doesn't know supported archs, so missing a configured arch is a failure
  49. configarchitecture 'amd64' 'i386'
  50. testfailure apt update
  51. testequal 'foo-1
  52. foo-2' aptcache pkgnames foo-
  53. msgmsg 'No Releasefile'
  54. rm -rf rootdir/var/lib/apt/lists
  55. find aptarchive -name '*Release*' -delete
  56. configarchitecture 'amd64'
  57. testfailure apt update
  58. testwarning apt update --allow-insecure-repositories
  59. testequal 'foo-1
  60. foo-2' aptcache pkgnames foo-