The "Out of date" binaries loop has gotten too complex to also handle
the "unsatisifiable dependency" check. Concretely, we failed to
generate proper excuses for arch:all packages due to this.
Separate the two loops to restore the arch:all check.
Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
The other item includes bug numbers so this one is less useful.
Closes: https://bugs.debian.org/886509
Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
The PiupartsPolicy does not use the report URL for testing, so we do
not need to store it in memory. Unfortunately, the logic was broken
and the discard did not happen.
Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
If a package had:
Build-Depends: foo [i386], uninstallable-pkg
Then the excuses for amd64 would point to "foo [i386]" rather than
"uninstallable-pkg".
Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
Add a new "BuildDependsPolicy" that will check the satisfiability of
the build-dependencies listed in the Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Arch fields. This enables gating of packages based on
missing / broken build-dependencies.
There are some limitations:
* Build-Depends-Indep is ignored for now. Missing or broken packages
listed in Build-Depends-Indep will be continue to be silently
ignored.
* Being a policy check, it does not enforce "self-containedness" as
a package can still migrate before a build-dependency. However,
this can only happen if the build-dependency is ready to migrate
itself. If the build-dependency is not ready (e.g. new RC bugs),
then packages build-depending on it cannot migrate either (unless
the version in testing satisfies there requirements).
Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
We basically use them as sets and do not need to rely on the ordering,
so we might as well just turn them into proper sets.
Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
Paul Gevers
Niels Thykier
Paul Wise