#525813 [apt-file] Packageversion

#525813#5
Date:
2009-04-27 09:32:19 UTC
From:
To:
apt-file search make-kpkg

only print as result

kernel-package .......
kernel-package .......

but the result should contains the packageversions from both distris
stable and tesing and eventually for sid

#525813#10
Date:
2009-04-27 12:21:31 UTC
From:
To:
Am Montag, 27. April 2009 schrieb Debian Bug Tracking System:

The original output from apt-file

matthias@svetlana:~$ apt-file search make-kpkg
suite:lenny [10.015] kernel-package: /usr/bin/make-kpkg
suite:lenny [10.015] kernel-package: /usr/share/man/es/man1/make-kpkg.1.gz
suite:lenny [10.015] kernel-package: /usr/share/man/fr/man1/make-kpkg.1.gz
suite:lenny [10.015] kernel-package: /usr/share/man/man1/make-kpkg.1.gz

This is my idea.

matthias@svetlana:~$ apt-file --suite --packageversion search make-kpkg
suite:testing [12.009] kernel-package: /usr/bin/make-kpkg
suite:testing [12.009] kernel-package: /usr/share/man/es/man1/make-kpkg.1.gz
suite:testing [12.009] kernel-package: /usr/share/man/fr/man1/make-kpkg.1.gz
suite:testing [12.009] kernel-package: /usr/share/man/man1/make-kpkg.1.gz
matthias@svetlana:~$ apt-file search make-kpkg

#525813#15
Date:
2014-01-20 21:49:00 UTC
From:
To:
I had a problem where a file was missing in a suite but it was present in
others. So I found this bug and kinda fixed it.

It feels hackish but it works

Also. I saw some other bugs mentioning apt-file 3.0 since the interface in 2.x
is not very good...

Is there any progress at all in that front?

Now that I took the effort to look at the apt-file source, I might look at some
of the other wish list bugs.
I wont bother at all/look at the new version if its going to be rewritten from
the ground up anyway

#525813#20
Date:
2016-07-06 16:32:14 UTC
From:
To:
This feature would really be useful, so we can see at once that a file eg.
existed in stable but is not here in testing any more.  For this, indication
of the source would be quite useful in addition to the version.

#525813#29
Date:
2024-02-22 01:46:43 UTC
From:
To:
Hey.

I took the liberty to forcemerge these two bugs (578727 and 525813) as
they seem to be about the same thing.

My suggestion would be that per default, the apt-file should print the
package name with =version.
Perhaps with the exception if only one version is available (or maybe
there should be an option, that causes the =version to be omitted, if
and only if, only on version is available).

When specifying the package name I think it should also allow =version
to be appended and follow the behaviour of e.g. apt-get cache, that is:
- if no version is given, match all available versions
- if one is given, match only that.


Cheers,
Chris.

#525813#34
Date:
2024-02-22 07:59:43 UTC
From:
To:
Christoph Anton Mitterer:

Hi

One challenge we have here is that a package can have multiple versions
in a given suite at the same time; notably in unstable. There is no
metadata that tells apt-file which file is in which version of the
package. So in this case, even adding a version could produce the wrong
result. I have no plan to support versioning for selecting the suite
because of the above problem, because it will not fix the root issue -
only gloss over it in some cases.

For people that want better support here, please request the archive
maintainers to provide an index with versioning so that apt-file can do
proper filtering.

Best regards,
Niels

#525813#39
Date:
2024-02-22 21:11:18 UTC
From:
To:
And multiple arches...

Against what would one file such request? ftp.debian.org?


Cheers,
Chris.

#525813#44
Date:
2024-02-23 07:09:46 UTC
From:
To:
Christoph Anton Mitterer:

Indeed. Though, `apt-file` has the information needed to filter here and
if you ask for only things in one architecture, you only get those (plus
maybe the implicit arch:all).

That would be my best guess indeed. They are the provided of the
metadata, apt-file consumes. I do not think it would need to be a major
change to the format. Adding the version next to the package name would
be sufficient (like turn foo/section to foo_version/section).

Best regards,
Niels