[Apt-Rpm] multiple good providers, how does apt pick the right one?

[Panu Matilainen]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Vincent Danen wrote:

> * [2008-03-01 10:08:58 -0700] Vincent Danen wrote:
>
>> * [2008-02-24 15:56:43 +0200] Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> 
>>>> Whether it's reasonably possible to have Lua-hook in the lowlevel 
>>>> depsolve
>>>> logic remains to be seen, but a C++-level callback shouldn't have such
>>>> problems. It'd be sad if Lua can't be used but (optional) app-specific
>>>> callback would still enable what you want, so not all hope is lost anyway
>>>> :)
>>> 
>>> ...and here's the first rough-cut of the C++ callback approach this time 
>>> batter^H^H^H^H^H^H patch included.
>>> 
>>> There are all sorts of nitty details to sort out, such as dealing with -y 
>>> and it's variants in semi-intelligent manner and probably some more 
>>> fundamental issues too but at least you'll get to play around with it a 
>>> bit.
>>> 
>>> Haven't done any extensive testing, just some basic "seems to do what 
>>> intended" runs so watch out for any falling pieces :)
>> 
>> Rocking.  I've had a busy week so haven't been able to play with this
>> yet, but if I get a chance this weekend I will do so and let you know
>> how it works out.  I'm still using 0.5.15lorg3.2, so I'm hoping this
>> patch will work with it?
>> 
>> I would have hit the devel version, but without knowing roughly when it
>> might be stabilized, I decided it against it in case I had to drop down
>> to the stable version once we pushed our latest release.
>
> Ok, patch definitely does not apply to the stable version.
>
> So...  in light of that, how stable is the devel version?  How much
> is left to wrap up the next stable release (hopefully something sane
> like 0.5.16 or 0.6?  =)

The work required for next stable release isn't that much, the problem is 
me getting around to do it :-/ The next stable release should've happened 
a year ago already, and look at where we are...

The devel version is fairly stable but there are some issues (otherwise 
it'd be trivial to release as stable)

> I'm going to package the latest devel version for my own personal test
> use, but I don't want to commit it to Annvix until/unless I know that
> it's pretty solid and that a stable release is on the horizon in the
> short(ish)-term (I plan to push 3.1-RELEASE for Annvix this spring or
> early summer and don't want to use a possibly-unstable development
> version).

> Is there anything I can help with (short of coding as my C is... well..
> not so hot) to move this thing along?

Not really. OTOH backporting the multiple good providers patch to 
0.5.15lorg3.2 should be pretty much a no-brainer (unless I'm forgetting 
something important ;)

 	- Panu -