Bug#815190: dh-make-perl: Accesses apt-file 3 cache directly

[gregor herrmann]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:14:39 +0000, Damyan Ivanov wrote:

> > Any opinions on 'apt-file (>= 3)' vs. 'apt (>= 1.1.8)'?
> I think 'apt-file (>= 3)' is better, since we use apt-file's 
> interface, not apt directly. 

Actually, in my understanding, we're not using apt-file but apt stuff
directly (that was probably partly designed for apt-file):
- `apt-get indextargets' (for finding the Contents files, which are
  downloaded by apt now like Packages etc.)
- `/usr/lib/apt/apt-helper cat-file' for reading the Contents files
  (also in the apt package)

These are the same interfaces that apt-file uses, IIUIC.


Thinking out aloud:

Having a direct dependency on new-enough apt would be more correct
technically as that is what dh-make-perl interfaces with; OTOH it
"feels" like we're using apt-file :) And some error output still
talks about "install apt-file, run apt-file update", which is also
not really true since apt-file just runs apt update and provides the
necessary apt config snippet to download the Contents files. --

Hm, that latter point might be a good reason to keep the apt-file
dependency because otherwise people would have to craft the apt
config themselves to get the Contents files. Maybe a compromise
interpretation would be "dh-make-perl technically doesn't use
apt-file but without apt-file installed the probability that using
the Contents files actually works is rather low, so let's keep the
Recommends on it."


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  Homepage https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer -  https://www.debian.org/
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   BOFH excuse #198:  Post-it Note Sludge leaked into the monitor.