--- /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?