Bug#674523: apt-get manpage: please document option --solver
Julian Andres Klode:
> Control: severity -1 minor
> Control: tags -1 - patch
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:01:00PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> Control: severity -1 important
>> Control: tags -1 + patch
>>
>> Patch attached. I didn't update the .po files yet because I supposed
>> there might be a way to automate the c+p of the English parts, which
>> I'll defer to you guys.
>
> I have that patched locally too, that's not a big deal. The big deal is
> documenting the other options properly and not refer to the .txt file
> for developers that describes the entire protocol.
>
What do you mean by "document the other options properly"?
> The patch is wrong on another level as well. If you had read the
> manual page, you would have noticed that there is a list of options.
>
> I have something like:
> diff --git a/doc/apt-get.8.xml b/doc/apt-get.8.xml
> index 4c34b29..a4c2a52 100644
> --- a/doc/apt-get.8.xml
> +++ b/doc/apt-get.8.xml
> @@ -428,6 +428,13 @@
> Configuration Item: <literal>APT::Get::Only-Upgrade</literal>.</para></listitem>
> </varlistentry>
>
> +
> + <varlistentry><term><option>--solver </option></term>
> + <listitem><para>Use the specified external solver. A binary with that
> + name must exist in the path configured at Dir::Bin::solvers.
> + Configuration Item: <literal>APT::Solver</literal>.</para></listitem>
> + </varlistentry>
> +
> <varlistentry><term><option>--allow-downgrades</option></term>
> <listitem><para>This is a dangerous option that will cause apt to continue
> without prompting if it is doing downgrades. It
>
> I also have no intention to manipulate the entity files for a simple niche
> option.
>
$ sudo apt-get --solver x update
E: Command line option --solver is not understood in combination with the other options
100
>From this I thought it was specific to "install", but now I see it's also accepted for some other things like "remove" and "purge". I'll update the patch.
> Also, the dump solver, I'm not sure what's going on there, I think there's
> a timing bug, but it should work.
>
$ sudo apt-get --solver dump install ack-grep
[..]
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
ack-grep : Depends: libfile-next-perl (>= 1.10) but it is not going to be installed
E: Write error - write (32: Broken pipe)
E: Write error - write (32: Broken pipe)
100
I get also the same result, when running without sudo, directly in a root shell.
By its name "dump", I figured it was an internal component and not an actual solver. I guess it is supposed to dump the EDSP to stdout? I will update the patch, but correct me if I'm wrong about the previous.
>>
>> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo:
>>> Control: severity -1 minor
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2016-08-18 12:49 Ximin Luo:
>>>> Package: apt
>>>> Version: 1.3~rc1
>>>> Followup-For: Bug #674523
>>>> Control: severity -1 important
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I'm bumping the severity for this because it's many years old, and it is
>>>> hiding an important feature from users.
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> If anything, being present for many years is an indication that it's not
>>> that urgent/important, specially not when nobody felt that it was
>>> important enough to work on it or submit patches.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> *I* think it's important. Probably nobody felt it was important,
>> because they didn't know that the option exists, because it's
>> undocumented.
>
> Nobody cares what you think is important. This bug does not have
> an important severity.
>
> important: "a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package,
> without rendering it completely unusable to everyone."
> minor: "a problem which doesn't affect the package's usefulness, and is
> presumably trivial to fix."
>
>>
>> On another point: Debian Developers should not be expected to act as a
>> developer *for every single package*; that would be ridiculous, not
>> scalable, implies no DD should ever file any bug. From the point of
>> view of APT, I am an ordinary user.
>>
>> A simple "please submit a patch, I don't have time to work on this
>> myself" would have been sufficient, instead of convolutedly arguing
>> "you shouldn't have touched this bug in the first place".
>
> Don't raise severities to absurd levels and people won't get
> angry at you.
>
Don't be so arrogant to believe that your judgment of "absurd" is objective or obvious. There was nothing in my original report that should have caused a reaction of anger.
Dependency resolution is a significant usability issue, and not documenting features that improve this situation, has a major effect on other people's perceptions of the whole software. The fix might be trivial, but not fixing it has a non-trivial result.
(And according to some things above that you wrote, apparently it's not trivial after all.)
X
--
GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
Reply to: