1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
|
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="spwhitton"
avatar="http://cdn.libravatar.org/avatar/9c3f08f80e67733fd506c353239569eb"
subject="reply to review"
date="2017-02-02T17:40:11Z"
content="""
Thank you for your feedback, Joey.
> I wonder if it would be better to separate `suiteAvailablePinned`
> into `suiteAvailable` and `suitePinned`? The latter could require
> the former.
I see how this could be useful, in particular if you want to make a
suite like Debian experimental available, which won't cause any packages
to be automatically upgraded.
However, it makes it less convenient, and perhaps dangerous, to revert a
pinned suite. For example, suppose on my Debian testing system I have
`Apt.suitePinned Unstable 100`. If I revert this property, it will
remove the pin but not remove the source. Then my system might get
mass-upgraded to sid if I'm not careful.
We couldn't have the revert of `Apt.suitePinned` remove the source
because then if I have both `& Apt.suiteAvailable Unstable` and `!
Apt.suitePinned Unstable 100`, the second property would cancel out the
first, which doesn't make sense.
On balance, I think it's best to keep the current property. A property
adding sources to apt.sources.d should probably force the user to pick a
pin value, to avoid any unexpected upgrades.
> `pinnedTo` should probably be DebianLike not UnixLike.
This was my 'TODO'. (Since the property takes a `DebianSuite`, I think
it should be `Debian` not `DebianLike`.)
I tried applying `tightenTargets` to `pinnedTo`, but that only seems to
affect one half of the revertable property. Do I need to implement a
new tightening function?
> And its `[String]` parameter ought to be `[Package]`.
I don't think so. The parameter to `pinnedTo` can be a wildcard
expression or a regex (per `apt_preferences(5)`). Neither of these are
accepted by other existing properties that take `[Package]`, such as
`Apt.installed`. I could add a new type alias, if you prefer.
> Is `File.containsBlock` necessary? Seems that if you care about
> ordering of blocks in the file, you generally should use
> `File.hasContent` to specify the full content. Rather than using
> /etc/apt/preferences.d/10propellor.pref for multiple properties,
> you could use a separate file for each `pinnedTo'` with the parameters
> encoded in the filename.
This was what I tried on my first attempt, but it gets very complicated
if the user passes a wildcard expression or a regex instead of a package
name. I would need to convert that wildcard expression or regex to a
cross-platform filename, and the conversion would need to be isomorphic
to avoid any clashes. The `File.containsBlock` seems more sane than
that.
> As to the TODO, I tried adding this: [...]
I don't understand how `robustly` is relevant to my TODO -- please see
above.
"""]]
|
