On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:44:31 +0200 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2013-06-17 23:46:32 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > → the most common use-case for apt-listbugs is: one invocation > > followed by another one done a while later and probably for a different > > set of packages to be checked for bugs > > Perhaps most common, but executing apt-listbugs several times in short > interval times on a similar set of packages is not rare for me, even > before doing the OR. And I suppose that this can be the same for other > users due to the limitation of Debian tools (apt, aptitude?): when one > sees that apt-listbugs mentions a broken package before an upgrade, > one generally wants to remove this package from the upgrade list, and > the only way to do this is to refuse the upgrade and do it again (e.g. > just after) without this package. So, apt-listbugs is run twice on a > very similar set of packages.
True, if you attempt to upgrade, and apt-listbugs detects new bugs potentially introduced by the upgrade, you may pin some packages, exit and then re-attempt the upgrade. In that case apt-listbugs is run twice in a short time interval on similar (but not identical!) sets of packages. Implementing a cache mechanism that is useful in this case, but expires in a short time (say 500 s, or something like that) should be possible, but a bit tricky... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpEjlzbgk57Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
