Builddep notifies apt-get update instead of requiring it

[dvcrn]

as the title says, builddep notifies apt-get update instead of requiring it, which doesn't make much sense. In almost every case, you want apt-get update to be executed before builddep.

The problem I ran into is a huge dependency cycle because of apt-get update. Builddep had to be executed after sources being added which after a lot of trying I concluded to not be possible. (serverfault here)

Changing notify to require solves this dependency cycle for me.

Any thoughts on this?

[daenney]

I have no clue whatsoever why builddep would ever notify apt_update. It's from the original module import almost 4 years ago so unfortunately it's hard to track down the 'why'.

I'll ponder this and check with a few people what they think.

[daenney]

@mhaskel I'd like to merge this because the old behaviour as far as I'm concerned doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Can you see any issues arising from requiring a refreshonly exec or should we play it safe and require the containing class?

[underscorgan]

@daenney I'm fine with requiring a refreshonly exec, and I know this maintains old behavior for that exec (and I'm not an avid apt user), but should builddep be running every time, or should it also have refreshonly and subscribe to apt_update?

[daenney]

Okay wait, there's something slightly more crazy going on. The exec in builddep is notifying the Exec[apt_update] but the anchor in builddep is requiring Class[apt::update]. I'm slightly unsure how this even works without creating a dependency cycle to begin with.

As far as the refreshonlyness of the exec goes, I'm unsure. Ideally build-dep would be supported through the install options on the package provider instead of an exec, then we wouldn't have the issue.

I think the reason it isn't refreshonly is in case something goes wrong you don't have to explicitly notify the thingy to cause it to retry to install the build dependencies.