[UDD] Suspected problem of upload_history importer
Hi,
when doing my usual inspection of Debian Met packages under
http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/bio#ampliconnoise
I stumbled upon the fact that for instance the package ampliconnoise is
featuring an uploader but the following package aragorn does not. The
information boils down to the changed_by field inside the upload_history
table. When checking UDD for both packages I get
udd= SELECT version, date, changed_by, maintainer from upload_history where
source in ('aragorn', 'ampliconnoise') ;
version | date | changed_by |
maintainer
-++--+--
1.22-2 | 2011-05-03 22:04:09+00 | Steffen Moeller moel...@debian.org |
Debian Med Packaging Team debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org
1.25-1 | 2011-08-21 19:02:23+00 | Tim Booth tbo...@ceh.ac.uk |
Debian Med Packaging Team debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org
(2 rows)
which is obviously missing the information for package aragorn. This is
definitely no singular case because when looking at the link above there
are several random packages without showing any name mentioned inside
() behind the Debian Med Packaging Team maintainer but usually should.
Before I might dive deeper into this problem: Is there any known trouble
with the importer for upload_history data that might lead to the fact that
not all packages are mentioned inside this table?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130613074659.ga14...@an3as.eu
Nota Fiscal Emitida Em às 04:56:56
EMISSÃO DE NOTA FISCAL Prezado cliente, Segue abaixo o(s) link(s) para acesso à nota fiscal eletrônica. Notas Fiscais NOTA CODIGO DE VERIFICACAO VISUALIZAR 11932075 DTU8DBSW NF-eletronica-8457348947..Docx [1] Atenciosamente, Equipe de Cobrança Links: -- [1] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/v6quwtb7n248aki/NF-e-165139972.zip?token_hash=AAGN5LUSQrZaBjw4JJB0hUq3Dl9mbHZlMu9c-Y0dv_nbhAamp;dl=1?welling...@solucao.org
Re: [UDD] Suspected problem of upload_history importer
On 13/06/13 at 09:46 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
when doing my usual inspection of Debian Met packages under
http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/tasks/bio#ampliconnoise
I stumbled upon the fact that for instance the package ampliconnoise is
featuring an uploader but the following package aragorn does not. The
information boils down to the changed_by field inside the upload_history
table. When checking UDD for both packages I get
udd= SELECT version, date, changed_by, maintainer from upload_history where
source in ('aragorn', 'ampliconnoise') ;
version | date | changed_by |
maintainer
-++--+--
1.22-2 | 2011-05-03 22:04:09+00 | Steffen Moeller moel...@debian.org |
Debian Med Packaging Team debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org
1.25-1 | 2011-08-21 19:02:23+00 | Tim Booth tbo...@ceh.ac.uk |
Debian Med Packaging Team debian-med-packag...@lists.alioth.debian.org
(2 rows)
which is obviously missing the information for package aragorn. This is
definitely no singular case because when looking at the link above there
are several random packages without showing any name mentioned inside
() behind the Debian Med Packaging Team maintainer but usually should.
Before I might dive deeper into this problem: Is there any known trouble
with the importer for upload_history data that might lead to the fact that
not all packages are mentioned inside this table?
The upload_history is broken since I don't have a way to access
debian-devel-changes@ archives from UDD since master moved to
new-master.
In order to clarify that this importer is broken, I've just removed all
data in the upload_history table.
This has been discussed multiple times with DSA, but no solution has
been found yet.
This is tracked in #702085.
Lucas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130613082933.ga4...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: [UDD] Suspected problem of upload_history importer
Hi, On Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 10:29:33 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 13/06/13 at 09:46 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: The upload_history is broken since I don't have a way to access debian-devel-changes@ archives from UDD since master moved to new-master. In order to clarify that this importer is broken, I've just removed all data in the upload_history table. This has been discussed multiple times with DSA, but no solution has been found yet. This is tracked in #702085. you have also been told to work out a solution with ftp-master. -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.orgDebian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer Debian Listmaster http://about.me/zobel Debian Webmaster GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130613083927.gc2...@ftbfs.de
Re: [UDD] Suspected problem of upload_history importer
On 13/06/13 at 10:39 +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: Hi, On Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 10:29:33 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 13/06/13 at 09:46 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: The upload_history is broken since I don't have a way to access debian-devel-changes@ archives from UDD since master moved to new-master. In order to clarify that this importer is broken, I've just removed all data in the upload_history table. This has been discussed multiple times with DSA, but no solution has been found yet. This is tracked in #702085. you have also been told to work out a solution with ftp-master. The main discussions about this topic happened on March 2nd and March 28th on #debian-admin. On March 2nd, I was asked to discuss with ftp-masters what needed to be done on the dak side to provide historical data. I did that the same day on #debian-ftp, and then sent https://lists.debian.org/debian-dak/2013/03/msg0.html, which was never answered. On March 28th, I re-raised the topic on #debian-admin. Sligthly edited log (to remove unrelated conversations) follows: 03/28/13 16:15:50 lucas One thing that is still broken is UDD's importer for history of uploads. that works by parsing debian-devel-changes@ archives. We would need a way to bring those archives from master to ullmann. 03/28/13 20:55:46@luca lucas: how did that work before master was moved? 03/28/13 20:57:10 lucas luca: the archives were processed locally, and the resulting files were downloaded over HTTP 03/28/13 20:57:24 lucas what broke that was the lack of httpd on master (which I understand) 03/28/13 20:58:29@luca so master could push them to ullmann? 03/28/13 21:19:44@zobel lucas: what is the status of the dak export of that needed information from ftp-master to udd? 03/28/13 21:20:01@zobel or do i mix up something here? 03/28/13 21:20:24 lucas zobel: no progress AFAIK 03/28/13 21:20:26 Ganneff no you dont, but as noone has put any work into it, the status is same like last time 03/28/13 21:21:19 lucas luca: master could push them, or, if you provided a script to sync them using a specific ssh key pair, that would work too 03/28/13 21:21:27 Ganneff üatches welcome, of course 03/28/13 21:21:39@luca lucas: however it seems that the arrangement is for dak to provide these? 03/28/13 21:21:51@luca lucas: rather than exporting from master 03/28/13 21:21:57 lucas luca: I don't have time to work on dak 03/28/13 21:21:58@luca lucas: based on what i just read 03/28/13 21:22:09 lucas luca: it seems that it won't happen if nobody has time to work on dak 03/28/13 21:22:15 Ganneff luca: someone needs to write the code. the export is easy, we just have to get the historical data into dak once. 03/28/13 21:22:29 Ganneff (and a new table in the db, but thats even simpler) 03/28/13 21:22:34 lucas luca: otoh, the code already exists and was functional to get that info from the mail archives 03/28/13 21:22:51 lucas luca: (the code for UDD) 03/28/13 21:23:55 lucas luca: so I think that a good compromise is to fix UDD ASAP by pushing or rsyncing the archives to ullmann, and switch to dak if the change happens there 03/28/13 21:29:43@luca seems like we need some master data management and an enterprise service bus ... 03/28/13 21:30:33@zobel lucas: so you need a script that parses mail on master, right? 03/28/13 21:30:47@zobel and import that data to udd? 03/28/13 21:30:50@luca dak - email - aggregator - website - wget - database seems more prone to data loss (emails do get lost) than dak - database - view - etl - table - database - udd 03/28/13 21:31:43 lucas zobel: not necessarily. I think that the easier would be to do all the processing on ullmann 03/28/13 21:32:00 lucas zobel: that is, push archives to ullmann. or even autosshfs them 03/28/13 21:32:40@zobel maybe Ganneff can add a mail address on ullman in dak config to be notified? 03/28/13 21:32:59@zobel baeh, i don't like that idea. 03/28/13 21:33:15 lucas can ullmann receive mail? 03/28/13 21:35:09@luca looks like zobel has this topic well in hand 03/28/13 21:35:28@zobel no. 03/28/13 21:35:40 lucas what's easier for you? 03/28/13 21:35:41@zobel i am currently debugging, where 25G are lost on beach.d.o 03/28/13 21:35:43@luca okay, then what are we doing? 03/28/13 21:35:53@luca well, this doesn't need solving this minute 03/28/13 21:35:59@zobel it needs. 03/28/13 21:36:07@zobel 630M left 03/28/13 21:36:09@zobel only 03/28/13 21:36:17@luca my 'this' is udd 03/28/13 21:36:44@luca the dak-udd problem needs a solution that everyone agrees to 03/28/13 21:36:58@luca am i facilitating this conversation or you? 03/28/13 21:37:02@luca let me know, either way 03/28/13 21:37:05@luca no rush 03/28/13 21:37:20 Ganneff that would be generate in dak i think. i dislike the mail thing, but it would work. 03/28/13 21:37:32 Ganneff and would be easy, but then udd needs to receive those mails 03/28/13 21:37:52@zobel lucas: could you work out with Ganneff or ansgar how the
Re: [PET / UDD] Missing teams in vcs table in UDD which should be covered by PET
Hi Ansgar, ping? Please let me know if you need any additional information. Kind regards Andreas. On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 02:23:47PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:31:54 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: I tried to use some PET information from UDD and checked for the existing teams: udd=# SELECT team from vcs group by team; team - pkg-perl pkg-games pkg-ruby-extras debichem pkg-ocaml-maint pkg-multimedia pkg-osm When looking at the PET page[1] a lot more teams are listed. AFAIK, UDD takes the PET data from the PET postgresql database, and this database contains only / is only used by PET3; i.e. all teams using or having used PET(1) or PET2 won't be there. So it seems [1] is outdated. [1] http://pet.alioth.debian.org/ That's a safe bet :) Is it possible to support all these teams in PET database and can I provide any additional information to let this happen? That's a question for Ansgar ... Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Donovan: Circus of Sour -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130613124352.ge18...@an3as.eu
