On 28 November 2013 16:29, Michael Vogt <email address hidden> wrote:
> Hey Dmitrijs,
>
> thanks for your bugreport. The "-f" flag means "--fix-broken" and is not
> used by apt the context of build-dep. This is why its complaining. If it
> breaks sbuild we can add it back, but note that it does not have any
> effect AFAICT (looking at the apt source).
>
Above is actually a regression, which causes sbuild to fail when using
AptResolver when cross-compiling. I don't know if "-f" actually does
anything when above command is invoked.
As per manpage all options apply to all sub-commands, and there are no
per sub-command options/restrictions. ( [-asqdyfmubV] )
specifically, why is "-f" rejected yet at the same time:
apt-get -oAPT::Get::Fix-Broken=true --purge -y build-dep hello
is accepted?
On 28 November 2013 16:29, Michael Vogt <email address hidden> wrote:
> Hey Dmitrijs,
>
> thanks for your bugreport. The "-f" flag means "--fix-broken" and is not
> used by apt the context of build-dep. This is why its complaining. If it
> breaks sbuild we can add it back, but note that it does not have any
> effect AFAICT (looking at the apt source).
>
Above is actually a regression, which causes sbuild to fail when using
AptResolver when cross-compiling. I don't know if "-f" actually does
anything when above command is invoked.
As per manpage all options apply to all sub-commands, and there are no restrictions. ( [-asqdyfmubV] )
per sub-command options/
specifically, why is "-f" rejected yet at the same time: Get::Fix- Broken= true --purge -y build-dep hello
apt-get -oAPT::
is accepted?
Similarly "--purge" had to be unbroken, see bugs.debian. org/cgi- bin/bugreport. cgi?bug= 720597
http://
Removing options, breaks compatibility, thus shouldn't be done in a
point release of such a core utility which is used in scripts.
Regards,
Dmitrijs.