Ubuntu
apt package

apt-get upgrade prints incomplete repo's

Bug #663864 reported by letstrynl
10
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
apt (Ubuntu)
In Progress
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: apt

Using 10.04 LTS server, 64-bit

Current version of apt: 0.7.25.3ubuntu9.3

When performing an 'apt-get update', the complete repo is shown.
Example:

  Hit http://nl.archive.ubuntu.com lucid-updates/restricted Packages
  Hit http://nl.archive.ubuntu.com lucid-updates/main Packages
  Hit http://nl.archive.ubuntu.com lucid-updates/restricted Sources
  Hit http://nl.archive.ubuntu.com lucid-updates/main Sources
  Hit http://nl.archive.ubuntu.com lucid-updates/multiverse Sources
  Hit http://nl.archive.ubuntu.com lucid-updates/universe Sources
  Hit http://nl.archive.ubuntu.com lucid-updates/universe Packages
  Hit http://nl.archive.ubuntu.com lucid-updates/multiverse Packages

Now, when upgrading the system with 'apt-get upgrade' it isn't possible to see where the upgrade package came from.
Example:

  Inst libc6 [2.11.1-0ubuntu7.2] (2.11.1-0ubuntu7.4 Ubuntu:10.04/lucid-updates)

In this example it is not clear if the new package comes from either main.multiverse,universe etc.
This is ofcourse also valid for other packages.

If I simulate the upgrade with the -s option, I could build an update tree per repo, which is what I want.
Currently this is not possible without walking through all the packages.

Solution: print complete repo id when using apt-get upgrade.

Example:

    Inst libc6 [2.11.1-0ubuntu7.2] (2.11.1-0ubuntu7.4 Ubuntu:10.04/lucid-updates/main)

instead of

     Inst libc6 [2.11.1-0ubuntu7.2] (2.11.1-0ubuntu7.4 Ubuntu:10.04/lucid-updates)

I consider this a bug in apt-get.

Tags: patch
Revision history for this message
letstrynl (letstry-deactivatedaccount) wrote :

No one?

This should'nt be too hard to fix, is it ?

Torsten Spindler (tspindler)
Changed in apt (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Revision history for this message
letstrynl (letstry-deactivatedaccount) wrote :

Hmmm, wishlist.

Is there a way to track proposed changes?

Or a better -more direct- way to contact the developers?
Maybe at Debian?

Revision history for this message
David Kalnischkies (donkult) wrote :

> Or a better -more direct- way to contact the developers?

The better way would be to grab the source and patch it if it is that easy as you say (haven't checked). Checking all reverse dependencies and whatever you can find on the internet parsing APT output wouldn't hurt, too (or is strongly advised if you want to avoid being flamed to death by users later on).

It is 'only' a wishlist and not a release-critical or another important bug the very few active APT developers are trying to squeeze out currently (mostly for debian squeeze now, but also post-maverick) so please understand that currently nobody from the core team is able to jump at that bug as time is unfortunately limited.

Revision history for this message
letstrynl (letstry-deactivatedaccount) wrote :

Bump.

That didn't occur to me yet, man do I feel stupid.

I'll take a look at the source, and if I can do it, I'll post a patch.

Thanks for the suggestion, David

Revision history for this message
Julian Andres Klode (juliank) wrote :

Attaching a fix, although I am not sure we actually want to change that as there are quite some tools parsing this output, as far as I know (debian-cd for example IIRC)

Changed in apt (Ubuntu):
status: New → In Progress
tags: added: patch
Revision history for this message
letstrynl (letstry-deactivatedaccount) wrote :

Ah, good someone picked up the problem, thanks Julian.

Maybe via an (extra) commandline option then (as in --showcomponents) ?
Existing tools parsing the output would have no problems then.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.