--ignore-missing doesn't work on apt-get download

[Removed by request]

I'm using Ubuntu 11.10 dev with apt 0.8.16~exp5ubuntu6. If a package can't be found on apt-get download the other packages aren't downloaded too. --ignore-missing doesn't force to continue the download. For example "apt-get download --ignore-missing htop ia33-libs" will stop on ia33-libs because the package doesn't exist but htop will not be downloaded then too.

TEST CASE:
apt-get download --ignore-missing htop ia33-libs

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

I was able to recreate this bug given the steps you've provided.

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

This also fails for 'apt-get install' and 'apt-get source'. Debian bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=409904&archived=no&mbox=no is similar but is only about 'apt-get source'.

[Daniel Hartwig (wigs)]

> For example "apt-get download
> --ignore-missing htop ia33-libs" will stop on ia33-libs because the package
> doesn't exist but htop will not be downloaded then too.

Ignore missing applies to packages that fail to download correctly but are otherwise known to apt. The command issued is valid, but would not continue due to transient errors..

In the reported case the package ‘ia33-libs’ is not known to apt, and the command is invalid. That is an entirely different situation than --ignore-missing is intended for and should not be included in its scope. In my opinion apt should not include an option to support such invalid commands, even if the package is only temporarily unknown due to removed sources or e.g. removal from the archive.

It is nonsense to ask the impossible of administrative commands and they should rightly fail.

[Removed by request (removed3425744)]

The command itself is not invalid because the package names are just arguments. In my opinion --ignore-missing should continue if a package isn't available. The reason for this is simple: "ignore-missing" implies that it will ignore any missing package - otherwise the option should get a more descriptive name.

[Daniel Hartwig (wigs)]

On 1 June 2013 16:21, Sworddragon <email address hidden> wrote:
> The command itself is not invalid because the package names are just
> arguments.

The arguments of ‘apt-get install’ are defined to be packages,
‘ia33-libs’ does not name any package, hence the command line /as a
whole/ is invalid.

> In my opinion --ignore-missing should continue if a package
> isn't available. The reason for this is simple: "ignore-missing" implies
> that it will ignore any missing package - otherwise the option should
> get a more descriptive name.

Semantics. ‘Missing’ can just as easily be interpretted as the
package exists (is known to apt) but not available in local storage.

In any case, the meaning and behaviour of options is defined in the
manual and not by what any particular user may choose to infer from
the name. Nowhere does the manual indicate that unknown packages will
be tolerated by this option, in fact it takes extra time to clarify
that the ‘missing’ packages it refers to are those which failed to
download.