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