The minimal set is comprised of only the first level of (reverse)
dependencies, before any further iterations of packages are added to
the set. In some cases, the result of the full iteration will contain
packages which cause problems when migrated but the minimal set,
although possibly a less optimal solution, may be able to migrate
successfully.
It is assumed that migrating the larger set of packages will be
preferred if possible, so minimal sets are tried later.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
The minimal set is comprised of only the first level of (reverse)
dependencies, before any further iterations of packages are added to
the set. In some cases, the result of the full iteration will contain
packages which cause problems when migrated but the minimal set,
although possibly a less optimal solution, may be able to migrate
successfully.
It is assumed that migrating the larger set of packages will be
preferred if possible, so minimal sets are tried later.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
In order to make a number of the changes required for the migration simpler,
we also complete the previous migration to using {Hint,Migration}Item rather
than passing around strings representing packages and converting between
the two forms in several places.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
The use of MigrationItem allows us to centralise the parsing and splitting of
package names and architectures, avoiding duplication and simplifying a
number of conditions.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Rather than only considering pairs of packages, we start from a "leaf"
package (i.e. one with an excuse which declares no dependencies on
other packages' excuses) and recursively build a list of packages
which are the dependency or reverse dependency of a package already
in the list.
Any list which is a subset of another list is ignored and the remaining
items are then processed as "easy" hints.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
Previously we could not reliably detect whether an excuse's dependency
from a source package to a binNMU was valid, as the excuse did not
contain sufficient information to determine the set of architecture(s)
on which the dependency existed.
By modifying the representation of the dependency list in the excuse to
include an architecture list we can walk the relationships in reverse
in order to sanity-check the source -> binNMU dependency.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
When considering an excuse for pkg1/arch, a dependency on either of
pkg2/source or pkg2/arch should be considered acceptable so long
as there is a corresponding excuse.
Dependencies from pkg1/source to pkg2/arch will still be considered
"impossible", as pkg1's excuse does not contain any information
regarding the architecture(s) on which its dependency to pkg2 exists.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
This allows the consideration of packages from proposed-updates to be
{dis,en}abled depending on whether the configuration file specifies
the path to the packages / sources files.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
This is most likely to be useful near the beginning of a release cycle,
when the versions of a package in stable and testing are the same and
the new version of the package is unable to migrate from unstable for
some reason.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
The permissions issues which led to the writing being disabled no longer
exist and not persisting the date list makes b2 unsuitable for use as a
primary implementation.
If a binary package being processed as part of a hint has moved source
packages, the installability checks for the new version of the binary
need to include the reverse-dependency information from the previous
version. In order to allow this, modify doop_source() to take an
optional list of undo information and iter_packages() to pass such
a list when processing hints.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
This reduces the number of ways in which we refer to uninstallable packages
to two. Those should probably be unified further to be consistent across
all parts of the code, but in the meantime this ensures that methods are
internally consistent in their terminology.
Signed-off-by: Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
