On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Michael Vogt <m...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:47:32AM +0200, Pauli Nieminen wrote: > > Maybe these patches will help fixing the issue. At least to me it looks > > like the cause of the problem. > > Thanks a bunch for digging into this and for the patches (and sorry > that it took me so long to reply). > > I'm still a bit confused though, AFAICS, 0.9.12.1 does send the sort > pkgname so the first patch should not be needed with the apt in > current unstable. Or am I missing something? I.e. do you still > observe that 0.9.12.1 sends the architecture string? > yes. If you check my 0.9.12.1 patch and shortname patch carefully you will notice that my patch applies same modification to second package name print place. In that place apt 0.9.12.1 is still passing directly what ever dpkg is sending to it > > As for the second patch, the new > PackageManagerProgressFd::StatusChanged() has a line. > status << "pmstatus:" << StringSplit(PackageName, ":")[0] > that should also strip the architectire before it goes out over the > status-fd to python-apt. The InstallProgress needs the full > architecture string for progress classes like the new deb822 progress > that will send out the archtitecture as a sperate field. > > Correct. I wasn't careful enough to notice that 0.9.13 already does correct architecture stripping inside StatusChanged > Cheers, > Michael > > >
