On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 05:41:01PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > I now tried
> >
> >     /usr/share/blends-dev/blend-gen-control --udd -r unstable -S  -c -m
> >
> > which results in a change of the debian/control file.  I see some diffs
> > compared to the non-udd version.  I do not have time to investigate those
> > single differences (all in all 40 diff paragraphs).  Just to make sure
> > I understood the test case correctly:  Both results (with --udd and
> > without) should have no difference, right?
> 
> In principle, yes. However the main difference is that the apt version
> takes the packages according the distribution setting in
> /etc/blends/sources.list.*, while the UDD version takes it from the
> release database.
> 
> So, /etc/blends/sources.list.unstable maps to testing, while "--udd -r
> unstable" will query for the unstable release and so take sid.

I'm aware of this difference and I tried both releases testing and
unstable.  Both show differences to the apt cache approach I have no
explanation for.  Does my test work for you in Debian Astro?
 
> I have seen the discussion why unstable maps to testing; and in
> principle one could map "UNRELEASED" --> "unstable" and "unstable" -->
> "testing"; however I don't want to have this coded in two different
> places: once in /etc/blends/sources.list.* and once in
> blends-gen-control. So, if we have it in blends-gen-control (or in the
> Makefile), /etc/sources.list.* should be reverted to standard.

Fine for me.
 
> > BTW,  I think my previous test - as non-sense it probably was to use
> > UNRELEASED - uncovered a problem:  If there is an empty list returned
> > the debian/control file should be changed to everything Suggests.
> > However it did not change at all which is wrong.
> 
> I'll check this.

Thanks

     Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Reply via email to