On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:14:39 +0000, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > Any opinions on 'apt-file (>= 3)' vs. 'apt (>= 1.1.8)'? > I think 'apt-file (>= 3)' is better, since we use apt-file's > interface, not apt directly.
Actually, in my understanding, we're not using apt-file but apt stuff directly (that was probably partly designed for apt-file): - `apt-get indextargets' (for finding the Contents files, which are downloaded by apt now like Packages etc.) - `/usr/lib/apt/apt-helper cat-file' for reading the Contents files (also in the apt package) These are the same interfaces that apt-file uses, IIUIC. Thinking out aloud: Having a direct dependency on new-enough apt would be more correct technically as that is what dh-make-perl interfaces with; OTOH it "feels" like we're using apt-file :) And some error output still talks about "install apt-file, run apt-file update", which is also not really true since apt-file just runs apt update and provides the necessary apt config snippet to download the Contents files. -- Hm, that latter point might be a good reason to keep the apt-file dependency because otherwise people would have to craft the apt config themselves to get the Contents files. Maybe a compromise interpretation would be "dh-make-perl technically doesn't use apt-file but without apt-file installed the probability that using the Contents files actually works is rather low, so let's keep the Recommends on it." Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - https://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- BOFH excuse #198: Post-it Note Sludge leaked into the monitor.
