Eric Yu | 4 Aug 00:57 2015

[PATCH 0/8] Add missing tests

This patch series adds tests for several features including essential packages, relational
dependencies, force options, --prefer-arch-to-version, and autoremove. This series also adds tests
for issues 162, 163, and 165.

Eric Yu (8):
  tests/opk.py: Add support for essential
  tests/opkgcl.py: support flags in upgrade and is_installed
  tests/core: Add tests for several options
  tests/core: Add test for --prefer-arch-to-version
  tests/regress: Add test for issue 162
  tests/regress: Add test for issue 163
  tests/regress: Add tests for issue 165
  tests/core: Add tests for relational dependencies

 tests/Makefile                          | 16 +++++++++
 tests/core/21_autoremove.py             | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/core/22_autoremove_dependency.py  | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/core/23_force_depends.py          | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/core/24_nodeps.py                 | 26 ++++++++++++++
 tests/core/25_essential.py              | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/core/26_prefer_arch_to_version.py | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/core/27_reldeps_lt.py             | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/core/28_reldeps_lteq.py           | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/core/29_reldeps_eq.py             | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/core/30_reldeps_gteq.py           | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/core/31_reldeps_gt.py             | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/opk.py                            |  2 +-
 tests/opkgcl.py                         |  8 ++---
 tests/regress/issue162.py               | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/regress/issue163.py               | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(Continue reading)

Alejandro del Castillo | 31 Jul 23:47 2015

[PATCH 1/2] test/regress: Add test for issue 156

Signed-off-by: Alejandro del Castillo <alejandro.delcastillo@...>
---
 tests/Makefile            |  1 +
 tests/regress/issue156.py | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+)
 create mode 100755 tests/regress/issue156.py

diff --git a/tests/Makefile b/tests/Makefile
index 707434f..7269d32 100644
--- a/tests/Makefile
+++ b/tests/Makefile
 <at>  <at>  -39,6 +39,7  <at>  <at>  REGRESSION_TESTS := core/01_install.py \
 		    regress/issue127.py \
 		    regress/issue152.py \
 		    regress/issue154.py \
+		    regress/issue156.py \
 		    misc/filehash.py \
 		    misc/update_loses_autoinstalled_flag.py
 RUN_TESTS := $(REGRESSION_TESTS:%.py=run-%.py)
diff --git a/tests/regress/issue156.py b/tests/regress/issue156.py
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..eca864d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/regress/issue156.py
 <at>  <at>  -0,0 +1,61  <at>  <at> 
+#!/usr/bin/python3
+#
+# Reporter: alexeytech@...
+#
+# What steps will reproduce the problem?
(Continue reading)

opkg | 31 Jul 22:13 2015

Issue 167 in opkg: With circular dependencies, all installed packages are marked as autoinstalled

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 167 by ericaust...@...: With circular dependencies,
all  
installed packages are marked as autoinstalled
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=167

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Create package 'a' that depends on 'b'
2. Create package 'b' that depends on 'a'
3. opkg install a

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
I expect 'a' and 'b' to be installed, and 'b' to be marked  
as 'autoinstalled' while 'a' is not marked as autoinstalled because it was  
explicitly installed.

Instead both 'a' and 'b' are marked as autoinstalled.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
0.3.0 Linux Mint 17.1 x64

Please provide any additional information below.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
(Continue reading)

opkg | 23 Jul 22:48 2015

Issue 166 in opkg: opkg compare_versions is broken

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 166 by ericaust...@...: opkg compare_versions is broken
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=166

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. in a shell, run `opkg compare_versions` with various versions and  
relations.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
When comparing things in Linux, it is typical for 0 to be returned if a  
condition is satisfied and a non-zero value otherwise. The compare_versions  
command in opkg does the opposite. Furthermore, several checks return the  
incorrect value (e.g. 1.0 '=' 1.0 and 1.0 '<<' 1.0 will return 0, while  
1.0 '>>' 1.0 will return 1). For reference, calling `dpkg  
--compare-versions 1.0 '=' 1.0` will return 0, while `dpkg  
--compare-versions 1.0 '<<' 1.0` and `dpkg --compare-versions 1.0 '>>' 1.0`  
return 1.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
0.3.0, Linux Mint 17.1 x64

Please provide any additional information below.
Functionality for checking versions is also provided in opkg-utils in  
opkg-compare-versions.c . Since the current implementation in opkg_cmd.c is  
broken and the proper functionality is included in opkg-utils, perhaps we  
can pull this command out from opkg and encourage the use of the version  
comparison functionality in opkg-utils instead?
(Continue reading)

opkg | 17 Jul 18:02 2015

Issue 165 in opkg: Packages fail to install when Recommends can't be installed

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 165 by ericaust...@...: Packages fail to install when  
Recommends can't be installed
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=165

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1.Create packages 'x', 'a', and 'b' such that 'a' recommends 'b', and 'b'  
conflicts 'x'
2. Install 'x'
3. Try to install 'a'

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
I expect 'a' to be installed, since 'b' is not an absolute dependency  
of 'a'.

Instead, nothing is installed.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
0.3.0

Please provide any additional information below.
There are several other set-ups that cause related problems. For example  
if 'a' recommends 'b' and 'c', but 'c' conflicts with 'x', then only 'b' is  
installed and 'a' remains uninstalled. Note this is different from issue  
162 since we do expect the non-conflicting packages to be installed in this  
case since recommends does not signal an absolute dependency. Similarly,  
if 'a' recommends 'b' and 'b' recommends 'c', but 'c' conflicts with 'x',  
(Continue reading)

opkg | 13 Jul 14:59 2015

Issue 164 in opkg: Opkg --version still return v0.1.8 even if opkg v0.3.0 was installed

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 164 by Masrur.M...@...: Opkg --version still return
v0.1.8  
even if opkg v0.3.0 was installed
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=164

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Build and compile opkg.
2. install opkg using 'make install' command.
3. traverse to the install directory and type opkg --version

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Expected: opkg version 0.3.0
What is shown: opkg version 0.1.8

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Downloaded source file of opkg 0.3.0
Ubuntu 12.04 LTS x86_64.

Please provide any additional information below.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

(Continue reading)

opkg | 10 Jul 17:15 2015

Re: Issue 32 in opkg: Problem when upgrading a package which depends on a new package


Comment #3 on issue 32 by ericaust...@...: Problem when
upgrading a  
package which depends on a new package
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=32

Here is some insight into how apt-get handles this case.

apt-get's upgrade command states:

Packages currently installed with new versions available are retrieved and  
upgraded; under no circumstances are currently installed packages removed,  
nor are packages that are not already installed retrieved and installed.  
New versions of currently installed packages that cannot be upgraded  
without changing the install status of another package will be left at  
their current version.

Note that apt-get has autoremove as a separate command rather than as an  
option and expecting autoremove to change the behavior of upgrade could  
complicate things.

Here is what apt-get does with this setup with different commands:

apt-get upgrade:
'a' is held back at version 1.0

apt-get upgrade a:
'b' is removed, 'c' is installed, 'a' is upgraded to 2.0

apt-get dist-upgrade:
(Continue reading)

opkg | 9 Jul 21:11 2015

Issue 163 in opkg: --force-removal-of-dependent-packages does not remove packages depending on the removed package

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 163 by ericaust...@...:  
--force-removal-of-dependent-packages does not remove packages depending on  
the removed package
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=163

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Create packages 'a' and 'b', where 'a' depends on 'b'.
2. Install 'a' (which also installs 'b')
3. Remove 'b' with --force-removal-of-dependent-packages

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Removing 'b' with --force-removal-of-dependent-packages should remove
both 'b' and 'a'.

Instead, only 'b' is removed, leaving 'a' installed.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Version 0.3.0

Please provide any additional information below.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
(Continue reading)

embracetheape | 8 Jul 02:11 2015
Picon

when does postinst run?

I'm looking for the chain of events that cause postinst to run on first boot of an image.  I'm working with
sysvinit.  Surely an init script runs something that eventually run all those postinst.  I can't seem to
find what init script does that.

opkg | 7 Jul 22:42 2015

Issue 162 in opkg: package with both non-conflicting and conflicting dependencies will result in installation of orphaned pakages.

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 162 by ericaust...@...: package with both
non-conflicting  
and conflicting dependencies will result in installation of orphaned  
pakages.
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=162

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Install a package 'x'.
2. Try installing a package 'a' which depends on 'b' and 'c', where 'c'  
conflicts with 'x'.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
I expect a, b, and c to remain uninstalled because of the conflict  
between 'c' and 'x'. Instead, 'b' is installed, while 'a' and 'c' remain  
uninstalled. This leaves 'b' as an orphaned package.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Version 0.3.0

Please provide any additional information below.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
(Continue reading)

opkg | 24 Jun 22:34 2015

Issue 161 in opkg: Add comman line option to skip package signature check

Status: New
Owner: ----
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium

New issue 161 by alejandr...@...: Add comman line option to skip  
package signature check
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=161

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Try to install a signed package in a system that doesn't have the key

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Opkg correctly prevents the installation. However, there are no ways to  
override the behavior from the command line (it's possible to change  
check_signature on the conf file)

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
3.0, NI Linux RT

Please provide any additional information below.
It would be beneficial to add an option to the command line to skip  
signature verification.

--allow-unauthenticated  (apt-get)
--force-bad-verify    (dpkg)

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
(Continue reading)


Gmane