Nabble - debian-qa

Bug#561655: qa.debian.org: Popcon statistics for a given source package should include old binary packages

2009-12-19T02:11:02Z

Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist

For example, take a look at the popcon page for the xulrunner source package:
http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=xulrunner

It includes information about the most recent binary packages, from unstable,
but doesn't track the packages from stable, which have different names.
Their graphs are still available directly, though:
http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=xulrunner-1.9

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Processed: Re: Bug#561568: qa.debian.org: wrong aegis version showed for unstable

2009-12-18T04:42:08Z

Processing commands for control@...:

> forcemerge 559863 561568
Bug#559863: wrongly reports package version in unstable
Bug#561568: qa.debian.org: wrong aegis version showed for unstable
Bug#560352: PTS and DDPO scew-ups
Forcibly Merged 559863 560352 561568.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Bug#561568: qa.debian.org: wrong aegis version showed for unstable

2009-12-18T04:39:24Z

forcemerge 559863 561568
thanks

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:12:28AM +0100, Walter Franzini wrote:
> the PTS page for aegis (http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/aegis.html)
> lists the wrong version for the unstable distribution: it shows 4.24.2-1
> while it is 4.24.2-2.

This is due to the recent change which allows multiple stanzas per
source package in the Sources file. The PTS tools don't yet handle this
properly. Since aegis is only at version 4.24.2-1 on hurd-i386, that
stanza is being encountered first and used. Merging with the other
bugs.

--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@...>

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment

Bug#561568: qa.debian.org: wrong aegis version showed for unstable

2009-12-18T02:12:28Z

Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: minor

Hi,
the PTS page for aegis (http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/aegis.html)
lists the wrong version for the unstable distribution: it shows 4.24.2-1
while it is 4.24.2-2.

--
Walter Franzini
http://aegis.stepbuild.org/

attachment0 (202 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: where to leave info about "bad packages" (in the bapase sense)

2009-12-16T01:17:15Z

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:22:52PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> As you can see, there is no option for “Request by simple
> developer”. Actually, it may be a good filter to avoid that people
> directly poke the FTP team without making sure that there is consensus
> for the removal. This is why I like a workflow that starts by a bug on
> the package.

I agree on this. In fact, my attempt at creating an "NMU-like" process
was meant to make more widespread the ability to request package
removals. Actually, I feel it is very related to NMU, because it is
exactly when you're squashing RC bugs that you might end up on
worth-removal packages. We hence need a workflow that the wannabe-NMUer
can employ to request the removal.

> Similarly, for the severity, using “Serious” from the beginning spends more
> Debian volunteer time than a non-RC severity. For instance, in the case of a
> NMU to close a RC bug, it would not make sense to open a new RC bug to document
> concerns on the future of the package, since the package would then stay in the
> radar of people dedicating time to prepare the next release.

I agree on this too. In fact, right now there are several bugs in the RC
list that are just removal requests and that I found "pollute" the
list. I believe they are there only to keep high the attention on them,
but they probably deserve a different road (as long as we can convince
the release team that the different road is actively and periodically
pursued).

> I (re?)discovered bapase in this thread, and to me it really seems that both
> tools are complementary. Bapase has basically only a couple of lines of text to
> store information, while the BTS can hold much more. I think that typically, a
> proposition for removal would contain a summary about the activity of the
> maintainer and upstream, as well as an inspection of the neighbour nodes in the
> package dependancy network. From my experience of privately inspecting packages

That's true, but Lucas concern about the fact that those few bapase
lines are machine parseable, whereas bug logs are not, is a valid
concern. The action item pending there is a request on how to encode
current bapase info in bug meta-data (I've on my todo list, but I
haven't yet had time to work on it, help is welcome).

> As discussed in this thread, there needs a couple of incentives to let
> people insert entries in bapase. Commit facilities, like a good Alioth
> ACL, and a checkout alias like ‘bapase-checkout’ or ‘debcheckout
> bapase’ if there would be some good reason to create a bapase binary

Actually, I believe that should be even simpler, a-la "bts" which is
fire and forget.

> In addition, a good advertisement like the improved wiki page written
> by Stefano. I actually think that once it is stabilised, it would
> really belong to the Developers Reference.

Yep, in addition to that I was thinking about preparing a sort of
announcement of the new workflow for d-d-a, because it is really
something we now need more and more to keep the archive clean. But all
this is still a bit premature. I believe the more pressing need is now
answering to Lucas' concern thinking a bit more about the synergies
between the BTS and bapase ...

Cheers.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

signature.asc (197 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: How to re-upload a removed package?

2009-12-15T19:11:44Z

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Alejandro Rios
<alejandro.rios@...> wrote:

> 1. Should I upload it to unstable or to proposed-updates?

That depends on your intention. At the minimum, the security issue
should be fixed in oldstable even though security support for it
expires in February. For that you need to follow this procedure:

http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/pkgs.html#bug-security

By uploading to unstable and more importantly maintaining the package
in the future you ensure that destar will remain available in Debian
and be available in future releases.

> 2. If uploading to unstable, should I make other changes different from
> those that are related to the security bugs (i.e. for lintian warnings,
> standars version), or not?

If you intend for the package to be available in future Debian
releases, you should do some or all of the following:

Clean up the package for lintian, policy, dh7, dpkg-source v3 etc.

Get in contact with upstream (which seems to have become active again
since destar was removed) to get the security issue fixed there and a
new release made. If you have time you could also get involved in
developing the software to ensure it does not get removed from Debian
again.

Contact the former maintainers of the Debian destar package - Debian
VoIP Team - and ask them if they would be interested in maintaining it
now that upstream is active again. If so you could join the team and
help them maintain it in their SVN repository. If not, then you could
maintain it yourself through sponsorship:

http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/debian-mentors_FAQ.html
http://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist

When a package is removed from Debian, all the bugs are closed (by
Marco Rodrigues). So you should look at the bug list (archived and
non-archived) for destar and reopen the ones that are closed in
version 0.2.2-5.2+rm, then try to get them fixed:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;src=destar

Fix all the issues listed on the PTS page:

http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/destar.html

Ensure that the package will pass the NEW queue:

http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html

Import the changes from the Ubuntu package:

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/destar

Look at the Ubuntu bugs too (inc closed ones):

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/destar

The next Debian/Ubuntu releases are quite soon so you'll need to do
the above fairly quickly.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: How to re-upload a removed package?

2009-12-15T10:01:50Z

Hi Alejandro,

On Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2009, Alejandro Rios wrote:
> 1. Should I upload it to unstable or to proposed-updates?

You should request an upload to unstable...

> 2. If uploading to unstable, should I make other changes different from
> those that are related to the security bugs (i.e. for lintian warnings,
> standars version), or not?

yes, you should.

regards,
Holger

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: How to re-upload a removed package?

2009-12-15T08:52:42Z

Hello Holger

OK, that's the same Anibal Monsalve told me, but when I was about to do it, two questions came up:

1. Should I upload it to unstable or to proposed-updates?

2. If uploading to unstable, should I make other changes different from those that are related to the security bugs (i.e. for lintian warnings, standars version), or not?

Thanks again.

Alejandro.

2009/12/15 Holger Levsen <holger@...>

Hi Alejandro,

On Montag, 14. Dezember 2009, Alejandro Rios wrote:
> But I'm not sure of what to do with this package anymore, specially after
> it was already removed from unstable and testing, but not from (old)stable,
> so some advice on this would be appreciated.

Just bring the package back in shape, fix the reasons why it was removed and
reupload it and have fun!

cheers,
Holger

Re: How long does debtag information need to propagate to UDD

2009-12-15T08:17:13Z

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Andreas Tille <andreas@...> wrote:

> So my question is: How to track the path the information on the public
> DebTags interface to UDD? I might try and read the code of the debtags
> importer but my hope is somebody is able to give a quick answer and has
> an idea who is really responsible (DebTags maintainers or UDD importer
> or even somebody else) and how this can be fixed.

IIRC the debtags admins (enrico) approve the changes and then they are
automatically added to the Packages files in the archive. Presumably
UDD then imports them from there.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

How long does debtag information need to propagate to UDD

2009-12-15T07:38:46Z

Hi,

as you might know I use UDD to display package information for Debian
Pure Blends. I tried to get a reasonable tool to set DebTags for a
set of packages which are used in a certain workfield (so called task).
This is implemented by providing a yellow button for not yet tagged on
pages like this

http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/epi

Somewhen in October I tagged all these packages and the information is
available in the DebTags database in the input interface. I do not have
any information how the DebTags information is propagated to UDD but
if it would be there the page above would show green buttons and a
tooltip with the tags set.

So my question is: How to track the path the information on the public
DebTags interface to UDD? I might try and read the code of the debtags
importer but my hope is somebody is able to give a quick answer and has
an idea who is really responsible (DebTags maintainers or UDD importer
or even somebody else) and how this can be fixed.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Bug#561228: VCS-CVS are converted to bogus hyperlinks

2009-12-15T03:19:53Z

Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist

Lines of the form
│Vcs-CVS: :ext:_anoncvs@...:/cvs contrib/hosted/tg/deb/makefs
are converted to bogus hyperlinks of the form
│http://packages.qa.debian.org/libb/:ext:_anoncvs%40anoncvs.mirbsd.org:/cvs%20contrib/hosted/tg/deb/libbsd-arc4random-perl
which is wrong for a number of reasons.

CVS specifications are not URIs, they consist of two parts, and
the separator is important (i.e. the parts cannot possibly be
easily concatenated), as it specifies the location of the root.

So I suggest to not make hyperlinks out of VCS-CVS fields, but
maybe display them as hover information.

VCS-Browser, if existent, are fine though.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/mksh

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: How to re-upload a removed package?

2009-12-15T03:01:24Z

Hi Alejandro,

On Montag, 14. Dezember 2009, Alejandro Rios wrote:
> But I'm not sure of what to do with this package anymore, specially after
> it was already removed from unstable and testing, but not from (old)stable,
> so some advice on this would be appreciated.

Just bring the package back in shape, fix the reasons why it was removed and
reupload it and have fun!

cheers,
Holger

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Bug#496490: Please investigate removal of adolc

2009-12-15T00:22:28Z

Barak A. Pearlmutter <barak@...> (15/12/2009):
> > even though Neil Williams tried to give him a hand.
>
> He did? I'd be happy to have a co-maintainer.

He did: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=496490#8

Mraw,
KiBi.

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Bug#496490: Please investigate removal of adolc

2009-12-14T21:03:35Z

> even though Neil Williams tried to give him a hand.

He did? I'd be happy to have a co-maintainer.

In any case, I'm in contact w/ upstream, and updating the package to
upstream version 2.x.

--Barak.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Bug#560697: qa.debian.org: old watch file used for DEHS for pam-pgsql

2009-12-14T20:52:59Z

Hi,

2009/12/14 Jan Dittberner <jandd@...>:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 04:28:46PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>
>> It uses the watch file and version information from the first entry it finds
>> of a package in Sources. So yes, your package is not yet at the same
>> version in all the architectures.
>
> It is at least on all supported architectures in unstable. Even the version in
> testing has a newer watch file.

No, check packages.d.o, hurd still has the old version DEHS is finding.

>
>> I will eventually make it use the latest version no matter in what place in
>> the Sources file is, but this requires more work than what I am willing to
>> commit to DEHS right now.
>
> Would you like me to provide a patch for this issue?
>

Would be great if you could provide one. Basically what needs to be
done is move the code that injects the new packages in the temporary
tables outside the loop that reads the Sources file of each archive
area. That loop should then be modified to store in the hash the data
that is later to be injected into the database, and compare the
version numbers if an entry already exists on the hash. The db-related
code should then work based on the generated hash.

Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

How to re-upload a removed package?

2009-12-14T12:57:05Z

Hello.

My package destar was removed due to a security issue (#522123), the upstream (which I'm part of) never came out with a better patch, so I proposed this one:

http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-voip/destar/trunk/debian/patches/fixCVE-2008-6539.dpatch?rev=7821&sc=1

But I'm not sure of what to do with this package anymore, specially after it was already removed from unstable and testing, but not from (old)stable, so some advice on this would be appreciated.

Regards,

--
Alejandro Rios Peña

Processed: forcibly merging 559863 560352

2009-12-14T01:27:07Z

Processing commands for control@...:

> forcemerge 559863 560352
Bug#559863: wrongly reports package version in unstable
Bug#560352: PTS and DDPO scew-ups
Forcibly Merged 559863 560352.

>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Bug#560697: qa.debian.org: old watch file used for DEHS for pam-pgsql

2009-12-14T00:17:06Z

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 04:28:46PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:

> Jan Dittberner wrote:
>
> > Package: qa.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > my DDPO shows an outdated upstream version in the unstable Watch column.
> > Obviously DEHS does not use the current watch file from the package in
> > unstable but an old version (maybe the one from the version in Lenny).
> >
>
> It uses the watch file and version information from the first entry it finds
> of a package in Sources. So yes, your package is not yet at the same
> version in all the architectures.

It is at least on all supported architectures in unstable. Even the version in
testing has a newer watch file.

> I will eventually make it use the latest version no matter in what place in
> the Sources file is, but this requires more work than what I am willing to
> commit to DEHS right now.

Would you like me to provide a patch for this issue?

Regards
Jan

--
Jan Dittberner - Debian Developer
GPG-key: 4096R/558FB8DD 2009-05-10
B2FF 1D95 CE8F 7A22 DF4C F09B A73E 0055 558F B8DD
http://ddportfolio.debian.net/ - http://people.debian.org/~jandd/

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Please investigate removal of adolc

2009-12-13T18:09:57Z

Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hi,
>
> please investigate removal of adolc, which has been RC-buggy since
> August 2008 (#496490), without any single reply from the maintainer,
> even though Neil Williams tried to give him a hand.
>
> Mraw,
> KiBi.

PROP_O/PROP_RM filed.

Thanks!

Barry deFreese
Debian QA

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Please investigate removal of adolc

2009-12-13T17:41:02Z

Hi,

please investigate removal of adolc, which has been RC-buggy since
August 2008 (#496490), without any single reply from the maintainer,
even though Neil Williams tried to give him a hand.

Mraw,
KiBi.

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-13T15:24:48Z

On 13/12/09 at 17:00 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:

> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > On 13/12/09 at 16:39 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >> * DEHS: fixed to make it work with current Sources, but it uses the first
> >> version it finds, which happens to be the oldest
> >
> > That doesn't really count as "fixed" :-)
>
> It's better than just failing to update the database because the
> (package,release) unique constraint is not met :).
>
> >
> >> * security tracker: fixed
> >> * lintian.d.o: not even reported, just noticed it
> >> * PTS: dunno
> >
> > * PTS: affected, not fixed yet
> > * DDPO: affected, not fixed yet AFAIK
> > * britney: fixed
>
> Right, I forgot about britney migrating different package versions :)
>
> > * piuparts.d.o: dunno
> > * UDD: well, "it's not a bug, it's a feature". added a view to provide
> > the old information. Some CGIs or views are probably still broken.
>
> Why not do it the other way around? that way less things will break.

Sadly, I think that we will have to live with this change. So it's
better if UDD exports that "inconsistancy" by default, and provides a
way to hide it.

> > * my archive rebuild scripts were affected (fixed)
>
> Mines will happily accept any number of versions, but it's useless to test
> old versions.

Well, mine too, but reporting bugs about older versions was not a good
idea.

> > Now, packages:
> > * debmirror?
>
> I only use it for binary packages, and seems to be working fine (in spite of
> the multiple arch:all packages).

Gah, there are multiple arch:all packages as well?

That increases quite a lot the potential for failures.

> > * APT proxies?
> > * Stuff in devscripts? (dd-list works fine)
>
> Have you checked if it considers the latest version?

No. It uses the last one listed using apt-cache showsrc (but that's
broken anyway if you have unstable+testing in your sources.list).

I'm preparing a mail to -devel@.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@... http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@... GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-13T15:00:38Z

Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

> On 13/12/09 at 16:39 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> * DEHS: fixed to make it work with current Sources, but it uses the first
>> version it finds, which happens to be the oldest
>
> That doesn't really count as "fixed" :-)

It's better than just failing to update the database because the
(package,release) unique constraint is not met :).

>
>> * security tracker: fixed
>> * lintian.d.o: not even reported, just noticed it
>> * PTS: dunno
>
> * PTS: affected, not fixed yet
> * DDPO: affected, not fixed yet AFAIK
> * britney: fixed

Right, I forgot about britney migrating different package versions :)

> * piuparts.d.o: dunno
> * UDD: well, "it's not a bug, it's a feature". added a view to provide
> the old information. Some CGIs or views are probably still broken.

Why not do it the other way around? that way less things will break.

> * my archive rebuild scripts were affected (fixed)

Mines will happily accept any number of versions, but it's useless to test
old versions.

> * Ubuntu syncs might be affected as well
>

Yay, second breakage (merge-o-matic was broken with format 3.0 IIRC)

> Now, packages:
> * debmirror?

I only use it for binary packages, and seems to be working fine (in spite of
the multiple arch:all packages).

> * APT proxies?
> * Stuff in devscripts? (dd-list works fine)

Have you checked if it considers the latest version?

Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-13T14:49:48Z

On 13/12/09 at 16:39 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:

> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I think we should understand how many things have been broken by this:
> > if they're many we can ask for the revert and start porting the code, if
> > we're a few just fix them. The PTS, for once, can easily be fixed: it
> > would be enough to remember the most recent version read while importing
> > Sources (but unfortunately I didn't have time to do that this week-end).
> >
> > How about mailing -devel and ask people to report breakages? (better if
> > with pointers to the already reported bugs)
>
> * DEHS: fixed to make it work with current Sources, but it uses the first
> version it finds, which happens to be the oldest

That doesn't really count as "fixed" :-)

> * security tracker: fixed
> * lintian.d.o: not even reported, just noticed it
> * PTS: dunno

* PTS: affected, not fixed yet
* DDPO: affected, not fixed yet AFAIK
* britney: fixed
* piuparts.d.o: dunno
* UDD: well, "it's not a bug, it's a feature". added a view to provide
the old information. Some CGIs or views are probably still broken.
* my archive rebuild scripts were affected (fixed)
* Ubuntu syncs might be affected as well

Now, packages:
* debmirror?
* APT proxies?
* Stuff in devscripts? (dd-list works fine)
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@... http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@... GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-13T14:39:08Z

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

>
> I think we should understand how many things have been broken by this:
> if they're many we can ask for the revert and start porting the code, if
> we're a few just fix them. The PTS, for once, can easily be fixed: it
> would be enough to remember the most recent version read while importing
> Sources (but unfortunately I didn't have time to do that this week-end).
>
> How about mailing -devel and ask people to report breakages? (better if
> with pointers to the already reported bugs)
>

* DEHS: fixed to make it work with current Sources, but it uses the first
version it finds, which happens to be the oldest
* security tracker: fixed
* lintian.d.o: not even reported, just noticed it
* PTS: dunno
* UDD: dunno
* ...?

There might be as well many more.

Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Bug#462934: Fix for this bug

2009-12-13T13:03:28Z

Hi!

Could you please consider at least a partial fix, with no message as
to why the redirection happened? I really could do well without the
message about redirection…

Thanks in advance.

Kumar
--
If you shed tears when you miss the sun, you also miss the stars.
- Rabindranath Tagore (Stray Birds, 1916)

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-13T08:50:23Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 02:56:40PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> More generally, it seems that we have a big problem.
>
> Many tools relied on the fact that the Sources file only contained one
> entry per package. This was changed recently, without any impact study,
> and instantly broke many tools and scripts.
<snip>
> I'm not sure where we should got from here: should we ask ftpmasters to
> consider reverting that change in some way? Or instead, try to find all the
> tools that relied on the old format?

I think we should understand how many things have been broken by this:
if they're many we can ask for the revert and start porting the code, if
we're a few just fix them. The PTS, for once, can easily be fixed: it
would be enough to remember the most recent version read while importing
Sources (but unfortunately I didn't have time to do that this week-end).

How about mailing -devel and ask people to report breakages? (better if
with pointers to the already reported bugs)

Cheers.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

signature.asc (197 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-12T05:56:40Z

On 12/12/09 at 07:53 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> retitle 560352 PTS and DDPO scew-ups
> thanks
>
> it's not just pcsc-omnikey, it's also others (imagination,
> libgnupdf, pth, qpxtool, xenwatch, ...).

More generally, it seems that we have a big problem.

Many tools relied on the fact that the Sources file only contained one
entry per package. This was changed recently, without any impact study,
and instantly broke many tools and scripts.

I've created a view in UDD that provides the old information (ie, only
the most recent source for each source package), and another one that
provides only the superseded source packages that are still in the
sources file.

select count(*) from sources_uniq where release='sid' and
component='main';
count
-------
14355
(1 row)

select count(*) from sources where release='sid' and component='main';
count
-------
15289
(1 row)

select count(*) from sources_redundant where release='sid' and component='main';
count
-------
934
(1 row)

I'm exporting the (source, version) from sources_uniq for unstable at
http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/sources_sid_filtered.cgi

I'm not sure where we should got from here: should we ask ftpmasters to
consider reverting that change in some way? Or instead, try to find all the
tools that relied on the old format?

- Lucas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Processed: Re: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-11T22:57:05Z

Processing commands for control@...:

> retitle 560352 PTS and DDPO scew-ups
Bug #560352 [qa.debian.org] PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)
Changed Bug title to 'PTS and DDPO scew-ups' from 'PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-11T22:53:59Z

retitle 560352 PTS and DDPO scew-ups
thanks

it's not just pcsc-omnikey, it's also others (imagination, libgnupdf,
pth, qpxtool, xenwatch, ...).

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@...
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Bug#560697: qa.debian.org: old watch file used for DEHS for pam-pgsql

2009-12-11T14:28:46Z

Jan Dittberner wrote:

> Package: qa.debian.org
> Severity: normal
>
> my DDPO shows an outdated upstream version in the unstable Watch column.
> Obviously DEHS does not use the current watch file from the package in
> unstable but an old version (maybe the one from the version in Lenny).
>

It uses the watch file and version information from the first entry it finds
of a package in Sources. So yes, your package is not yet at the same
version in all the architectures.

I will eventually make it use the latest version no matter in what place in
the Sources file is, but this requires more work than what I am willing to
commit to DEHS right now.

Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Re: QA Upload: fondu -- Mac to Unix font converter

2009-12-11T08:27:09Z

Hi, Christoph.

On Dec 11 2009, Christoph Egger wrote:
> The changes are actually minimal for a new upstream release (I
> was not reacting as I was expecting way more).

Fair enough.

> Did you consider adopting the package if it does matter much for
> you? While being updated through QA is good having a real Maintainer
> is of course the idea state for a package

Yes, I did consider that, but I'm overwhelmed with some other QA work
that I'm doing. Just for the record, I'm currently evaluating if it is
feasible to maintain xpdf or not.

Also, I am happy to say that at least two of the packages that I got to
do QA updates were, *very* shortly afterwards, adopted by other people.
The packages that I have in mind are gphotofs and id3lib3.8.3, which
were gathering dust.

I am including the -qa list here so that the are away of my efforts and
interests (which I already briefly told to Barry deFreese privately).

> > dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fondu/fondu_0.0.20051010-1.dsc
>
> Uploaded.

Thank you again.

Regards, Rogério Brito.

--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Bug#560697: qa.debian.org: old watch file used for DEHS for pam-pgsql

2009-12-11T05:46:51Z

Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal

my DDPO shows an outdated upstream version in the unstable Watch column.
Obviously DEHS does not use the current watch file from the package in
unstable but an old version (maybe the one from the version in Lenny).

Regards
Jan

--
Jan Dittberner - Debian Developer
GPG-key: 4096R/558FB8DD 2009-05-10
B2FF 1D95 CE8F 7A22 DF4C F09B A73E 0055 558F B8DD
http://ddportfolio.debian.net/ - http://people.debian.org/~jandd/

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment

Processed: Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-10T09:30:09Z

Processing commands for control@...:

> reassign 560352 qa.debian.org
Bug #560352 [qa.debian.org] PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)
Ignoring request to reassign bug #560352 to the same package
> --
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Processed: reassign 560352 to qa.debian.org

2009-12-10T09:30:07Z

Processing commands for control@...:

> reassign 560352 qa.debian.org
Bug #560352 [packages.qa.debian.org] PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)
Warning: Unknown package 'packages.qa.debian.org'
Bug reassigned from package 'packages.qa.debian.org' to 'qa.debian.org'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)

2009-12-10T09:08:46Z

Package: packages.qa.debian.org
Severity: normal

Hi,

somehow, the pts site of pcsc-omnikey shows version 1:2-4 in unstable
(and also my ddpo site), while the archive has, correctly, 1:3-3.

Regards,
Daniel

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@...
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...