The test only needs to consider whether any binaries exist on a given
arch, not how many of them there are (or indeed which binaries they are)
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
When checking whether a tpu source has built on a particular arch, we
should only consider binaries produced by the latest version of the
source package in tpu.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Originally when binNMUs for packages in testing were scheduled, the
binaries would be installed into tpu with no accompanying source. This
allowed the "removed binary" portions of should_upgrade_srcarch() to be
skipped (as britney had generated a faux source record).
dak now adds the source package to tpu in such cases which lead to the
"removed binary" checks being applied to binNMUs in tpu with potentially
destructive consequences. For example, if a package with amd64 and i386
binaries in testing were binNMUed on just amd64, britney would notice
that there were no i386 binaries in tpu and subsequently remove the i386
binaries from testing as well.
In order to resolve this, we skip the check for removed binaries when
building excuses for a binary-only migration via *pu.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
The primary difference between the parsing / output of excuses for *pu
and unstable unblocks is the messages displayed. We can therefore remove
some duplication by having the same code handle both, outputting the
appropriate message.
Where a *pu package is also the subject of a "block" (most likely during
a freeze) we only supply the "needs approval" or "approved" message;
previously both "needs approval" and "not touching due to block" were
output, which is redundant. We ensure that there is always a dummy
"block" hint for *pu packages to provide the "needs approval" behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
An "approve" hint is effectively an unblock for tpu packages and britney
is already quiite happy to parse "unblock $pkg/$tpuversion".
We allow the old name to be used for compatibility and replace it with
"unblock" internally.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
A dependency on an arch-specific package which is not a valid candidate
should lead to the depending package not being a candidate.
For now we ensure that the generated excuses output remains the same,
so that we don't have to wait for consumers to adapt to a new format.
Changing the output format should be revisited at a later point.
See Debian bug #693068.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
The code using the variables was refactored in 694d614b. As a result
they were still set in iter_packages() but never subsequently used.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Previously a package which became obsolete during a run would not be
automatically removed until the next run. This was due to the fact that
sources[][BINARIES] is not updated during the run. Instead, we build a
list of source packages which produce at least one binary and then
remove any packages not in that list.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Setting SMOOTH_UPDATES to a string which is neither a valid section
name (nor the magic string "ALL") should allow removal of old libraries
to continue without any new smooth updated libraries being accepted.
An empty SMOOTH_UPDATES would also stop removals from occurring.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
"not force and not earlyabort" simplifies to "not earlyabort" rather
than "not force", as an easy hint would set "earlyabort" but not
"force".
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
All callers of get_reverse_tree compute the same modification of its
return value, so move that computation into get_reverse_tree.
Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
Adam D. Barratt
Niels Thykier
Colin Watson
Iain Lane
Scott Kitterman
Adam Conrad