On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 05:46:28PM +0200, Michael Schaller wrote: > Package: python-apt > Version: 1.0.0~beta3 > Severity: minor > > Issues with the documentation: > ------------------------------ > 1) The method returns an apt_pkg.Package object (or None) and not an > apt_pkg.Version object as documented.
Not sure how this happened to be wrongly documented, probably just a mixed those two up. > > 2) smart_target_pkg returns for most dependencies None which is unexpected > as the apt_pkg.Dependency.all_targets method returns in nearly all cases > apt_pkg.Version objects even if smart_target_pkg returns None. Once I had a > look on the Apt's C++ code it was obvious that smart_target_pkg returns None > for all target packages that have an empty provides list. The documentation > for smart_target_pkg doesn't even mention the word "provides" though. Oh well, it did not do that when I wrote the documentation IIRC. > 5) Looking at the C++ code the first best package which meets the view > criteria is retured and the rest aren't even looked at. Hardly a ‘natural > target’ if you ask me. > > > My conclusion: > -------------- > To me it looks like smart_target_pkg is a very special helper function > within Apt and not useful for python-apt at all. smart_target_pkg itself is > only twice used within the whole Apt codebase: > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/apt/apt.git/tree/apt-pkg/algorithms.cc?id=439b024abe8fd6b8227a8b2869aab65a1186cfda#n580 > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/apt/apt.git/tree/apt-private/private-output.cc?id=439b024abe8fd6b8227a8b2869aab65a1186cfda#n680 > > IMHO smart_target_pkg should be removed as all_targets is the better > alternative. If smart_target_pkg should stay then I recommend to fix its > documentation and to add target_pkg as well. I'm not sure I want to drop it. We don't have any users in the archive, but that seems a bit rude (Package.auto, the only removed attribute, was a different case, that one always returns 0). Do you have a patch for the documentation? That would be great. If not, that's fine too, but I won't come up with one a week before this semester's exams start, so it will have to wait until DebCamp. We can deprecate it, though. Not sure what mvo thinks. -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. Be friendly, do not top-post, and follow RFC 1855 "Netiquette". - If you don't I might ignore you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
