On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 at 14:37, Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 11:41:29AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > You might reasonably say that "the maintainer of bar didn't add the > > correct Breaks/Replaces on foo" is a RC bug in bar - and it is! - but > > judging by the number of "missing Breaks/Replaces" bug reports that have > > to be opened by unstable users (sometimes me), it's a very easy mistake > > to make. > > That number seemed quite vague to me and I wanted to get a better handle > on it. The rough idea here should be that we have some package from > bullseye and "upgrade" it to a different package from bookworm. > Generating useful candidates for this can be done using Contents. Given > candidates, I've attached a validation script: > > ./check_conflicts.sh $OLDPKG bullseye $NEWPKG bookworm > > In order to draw value from it, the output must be parsed. The exit code > can be non-zero for various reasons. As for candidate generation, I > think one can either just try them all (which takes a bit longer on the > validation phase) or reduce their number by ignoring existing > Breaks+Replaces, but I haven't found an elegant solution for the latter > yet. > > In any case, unstable has around: > * 5700 Breaks > * 6500 Replaces > * 100 unpack errors due to missing Breaks+Replaces > > That latter number has just been turned into rc bugs...
Hi Helmut, To make sure we don't miss any packages out accidentally: could you confirm that those hundred-or-so errors occurred from 27 or so distinct packages? (looking at RC bugs created within the past week, I currently find 27 bugs with 'Breaks+Replaces' in the title) https://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=na&merged=ign&keypackages=only&fnewer=only&fnewerval=7&flastmodval=7&rc=1&cpopcon=1&chints=1&ckeypackage=1&ctags=1&cdeferred=1&caffected=1&sortby=last_modified&sorto=asc&format=html#results Thanks, James