--- /tmp/apt-2.2.4jkc9sgqo/debian/libapt-pkg-doc_2.2.4_all.deb
+++ libapt-pkg-doc_2.2.4_all.deb
├── file list
│ @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
│ -rw-r--r-- 0 0 0 4 2021-06-10 08:53:34.000000 debian-binary
│ -rw-r--r-- 0 0 0 30668 2021-06-10 08:53:34.000000 control.tar.xz
│ --rw-r--r-- 0 0 0 941080 2021-06-10 08:53:34.000000 data.tar.xz
│ +-rw-r--r-- 0 0 0 941084 2021-06-10 08:53:34.000000 data.tar.xz
├── control.tar.xz
│ ├── control.tar
│ │ ├── ./md5sums
│ │ │ ├── ./md5sums
│ │ │ │┄ Files differ
├── data.tar.xz
│ ├── data.tar
│ │ ├── ./usr/share/doc/libapt-pkg-doc/html/todo.xhtml
│ │ │ @@ -72,17 +72,17 @@
│ │ │
Member pkgAcqIndexDiffs::available_patches
│ │ │ These are indexed by sha1sum; why not use some sort of dictionary instead of relying on ordering and stripping them off the front?
│ │ │ Class pkgAcqMetaSig
│ │ │ Why protected members?
│ │ │ Member pkgAcqMetaSig::Failed (std::string const &Message, pkgAcquire::MethodConfig const *const Cnf) APT_OVERRIDE
│ │ │ this is used often (e.g. in pkgAcqIndexTrans) so refactor
│ │ │ Class pkgAcquire
│ │ │ -Why all the protected data items and methods?
│ │ │ +Like everything else in the Acquire system, this has way too many protected items.
│ │ │ Why so many protected values?
│ │ │ -Like everything else in the Acquire system, this has way too many protected items.
│ │ │ +Why all the protected data items and methods?
│ │ │
│ │ │ Member pkgAcquire::Access
│ │ │ Doesn't this duplicate Config->Access?
│ │ │ Member pkgAcquire::Bump ()
│ │ │ Why both this and Cycle()? Are they expected to be different someday?
│ │ │ Member pkgAcquire::Configs
│ │ │ why a hand-managed config dictionary instead of std::map?
│ │ │ @@ -102,16 +102,16 @@
│ │ │ Is this right?
│ │ │ Member pkgAcquire::Queues
│ │ │ why a hand-managed list of queues instead of std::list or std::set?
│ │ │ Member pkgAcquire::RunMessages ()
│ │ │ Several message types lack separate handlers.
│ │ │ Member pkgAcquire::Workers
│ │ │ Why not just use a std::set?
│ │ │ -why a hand-managed list of workers instead of std::list or std::set?
│ │ │ -This is plural because support exists in Queue for multiple workers. However, it does not appear that there is any way to actually associate more than one worker with a queue.
│ │ │ +This is plural because support exists in Queue for multiple workers. However, it does not appear that there is any way to actually associate more than one worker with a queue.
│ │ │ +why a hand-managed list of workers instead of std::list or std::set?
│ │ │
│ │ │ Class pkgAcquireStatus
│ │ │ Why protected members?
│ │ │ Member pkgAcquireStatus::MediaChange (std::string Media, std::string Drive)=0
│ │ │ This is a horrible blocking monster; it should be CPSed with prejudice.
│ │ │ Member pkgCache< Str, Itr >::DescFile::Size
│ │ │ document pkgCache::DescFile::Size
│ │ │ @@ -134,26 +134,26 @@
│ │ │ Member pkgDepCache::Policy::IsImportantDep (DepIterator const &Dep) const
│ │ │ this is a meant as a temporary solution until the
│ │ │ Member pkgDPkgPM::Go (APT::Progress::PackageManager *progress) APT_OVERRIDE
│ │ │ workaround for dpkg bug, see our ./test-bug-740843-versioned-up-down-breaks test
│ │ │ Member pkgDPkgPM::OpenLog ()
│ │ │ use a better string after freeze
│ │ │ Member pkgDPkgPM::ProcessDpkgStatusLine (char *line)
│ │ │ -2: is "pkgname" here reliable with dpkg only sending us
│ │ │ -this needs a muliarch testcase
│ │ │ +this needs a muliarch testcase
│ │ │ +2: is "pkgname" here reliable with dpkg only sending us
│ │ │
│ │ │ Member pkgPackageManager::EarlyRemove (PkgIterator Pkg, DepIterator const *const Dep) APT_MUSTCHECK
│ │ │ -Unify messaging with Protected below.
│ │ │ -Message should talk about Protected, not Essential, and unified.
│ │ │ +Message should talk about Protected, not Essential, and unified.
│ │ │ +Unify messaging with Protected below.
│ │ │
│ │ │ Member pkgPolicy::pkgPolicy (pkgCache *Owner)
│ │ │ make ExpressionMatches static to use it here easily
│ │ │ Member pkgProblemResolver::ResolveInternal (bool const BrokenFix=false)
│ │ │ -we should undo the complete MarkInstall process here
│ │ │ -use DoUpgrade(Pkg) instead?
│ │ │ +use DoUpgrade(Pkg) instead?
│ │ │ +we should undo the complete MarkInstall process here
│ │ │
│ │ │ Member pkgSrcRecords::Parser::BuildDepends (std::vector< BuildDepRec > &BuildDeps, bool const &ArchOnly, bool const &StripMultiArch=true)=0
│ │ │ Add a parameter to specify which architecture to use for [wildcard] matching
│ │ │ Member pkgSystem::MultiArchSupported () const =0
│ │ │ these methods should be virtual
│ │ │ Member SigVerify::CopyAndVerify (std::string CDROM, std::string Name, std::vector< std::string > &SigList, std::vector< std::string > PkgList, std::vector< std::string > SrcList)
│ │ │ delete any existing gpg file?