On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:59:09AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > How does one report problems with the package tracking system? I > followed the link on packages.qa.debian.org and got no response.
I just added a link to the qa.d.o pseudopackage of the BTS to every individual page (can take up to 8 hours until every page is regenerated though). > That's certainly not a complaint -- I don't necessarily expect to get > a response right away, but I have no way of tracking this or knowing > whether my comments have been received. > > There are three things that seem wrong about what's on the package > tracking package for icu (http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/icu.html): > > 1. The system warns that the bug tracking system contains patches, > but there aren't any bugs with patches except one bug that has > been closed for a long time and in fact will be archived in one > day. There's a note about a patch from Ubuntu. Maybe it's > counting that. Isn't supposed to, but this code isn't in CVS (yet). It does look like a bug indeed. > 2. PTS shows one release critical bug and shows that icu (source) is > buggy in the testing status area. There aren't any release > critical bugs against icu right now. Even clicking on the link > from PTS doesn't show any. Also, the release critical bug report > doesn't show any bugs against icu. There is a bug against icu28 > which creates a binary package with the same name as one of icu's > packages (this is the release critical bug). Maybe PTS is > getting confused by that? This was still true with the latest run of the testing migration scripts, about which the PTS reports. You will see the same on every other source of this testing migration procedure, including the canonical one. See http://www.debian.org/devel/testing for further reading. > 3. ICU has not been rebuilt on hppa (like anything else recently > uploaded), m68k, or sparc, but PTS is not showing it to be out of > date on those platforms. I thought it always showed that even > when there were other issues such as the age being too low. Technically, it is not out of date. Due to a quirk in the script that ftp-masters use to remove obsolete packages, and because all binary:any packages were renamed, there are no outdated binaries left over in unstable. So this is not a blocking reason. It still won't propagate due to dependencies formerly depending on architectures of which now there is no icu version at all, but that's a different criterium. [EMAIL PROTECTED] madison -S icu -s unstable icu-doc | 3.4-1 | unstable | all libicu34 | 3.4-1 | unstable | alpha, arm, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, s390 libicu34-dev | 3.4-1 | unstable | alpha, arm, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, s390 icu | 3.4-1 | unstable | source [EMAIL PROTECTED] > If anyone can shed some light on any of these, that would be helpful. > It looks like PTS has had many recent improvements, which is great. > If there are a few problems, I'd like to do my duty and report them so > that they can get fixed while the changes are fresh. The first thing > I did was look for a pseudopackage in the bug tracking system for PTS, > but I couldn't find one. Perhaps I overlooked it? I hope my newest addition to each PTS page will make it clearer that qa.debian.org is also there for subdomains of qa.debian.org Thanks for the feedback, if you like, you can still report the first of the three points as bug. And if you have suggestions to clarify in the PTS about the second point being 3rd party output... go ahead :). --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
