Re: Bug reports by maintainer
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 02:02:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 07:58:14PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: > > > I believe the goal is to remove the static pages completely. Only a > > > few more scripts need to be written. > > > > And how would that be a good goal? People can mirror static pages, caches > > can cache them... > > We don't have a good, fast system that is able to regenerate the static > pages in a timely manner. What about these new scripts? How about something like every n hours, using a Perl script which essentially does: for every file in /debian/debbugs/db/*.report /debian/debbugs/archive/*.status - if it's new or been changed in the last n hours, run the CGI script to regenerate the bug page, and note the package it's in Finally, regenerate all of the affected packages' pages To avoid having to figure out which packages have been affected, one could always make the debbugs scripts note in a log file any package which has been affected, and then use that file every n hours. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Re: Bug reports by maintainer
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 07:58:14PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote: > > I believe the goal is to remove the static pages completely. Only a > > few more scripts need to be written. > > And how would that be a good goal? People can mirror static pages, caches > can cache them... We don't have a good, fast system that is able to regenerate the static pages in a timely manner. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: Two maintainer entrys in "bug reports by maintainer"
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 08:25:47AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > I think if you reupload your packages with the correct Maintainer field, > > then > > the bug system will fix itself. > Hmmm, that might fix the situation of two entries in the bug report > for woody but not for slink or potato bugs. > Moreover I consider it to be nonsense to upload a new package only > to replace one valid e-mail address by another valid e-mail address > without fixing any bugs (because there aren't any) or new upstream > versions. The BTS takes the addresses from the `Maintainers' file, which you can find under indices/ directory on each FTP mirror. I'm not sure, but it would seem logical that the newest available package entry gets in the file. Alternatively, ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] to change it manually. -- enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
Re: Two maintainer entrys in "bug reports by maintainer"
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Herbert Xu wrote: > I don't think that the bug tracking system takes this into account at all. Yes, and I wonder, if it should identify the maintainer regarding to his name (in the moment the unique identification is possible by first and last name) and not by e-mail adresses. If it is just the case for me this is no problem because I know the fact now. But as I said I see the danger of unifixed bugs because the maintainer does not notice it. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Two maintainer entrys in "bug reports by maintainer"
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 08:25:47AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hmmm, that might fix the situation of two entries in the bug report
> for woody but not for slink or potato bugs.
I don't think that the bug tracking system takes this into account at all.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Re: Two maintainer entrys in "bug reports by maintainer"
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Herbert Xu wrote: > I think if you reupload your packages with the correct Maintainer field, then > the bug system will fix itself. Hmmm, that might fix the situation of two entries in the bug report for woody but not for slink or potato bugs. Moreover I consider it to be nonsense to upload a new package only to replace one valid e-mail address by another valid e-mail address without fixing any bugs (because there aren't any) or new upstream versions. Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Two maintainer entrys in "bug reports by maintainer"
Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should I file a bug report against the bug system?
> (Filing a bug-report against myself is hard in this case because
> I can't fix it ;-).)
I think if you reupload your packages with the correct Maintainer field, then
the bug system will fix itself.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Re: Two maintainer entrys in "bug reports by maintainer"
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Josip Rodin wrote: > > It is my task to use always the same address or is it a bug in the > > bug system? > Neither. Do as you wish :) :) So far the funny side of this aspect, but together with the fact that there are problems in sending PM to the maintainer (see a running thread on this list) it might lead to the situation that a developer never notices a bug. I for myself check bugs against my packages using a script which calls lynx with a certain address (not with two or more). > Personally I prefer using a unique Maintainer: field in all of my packages. Perfectly all right and believe it or not it was my intention just to stick on a single e-mail address (simply [EMAIL PROTECTED]) for this purpose, because I had trouble when my other address was changing and so I decided to use the Debian address for all Debian purpose). While there are some unchanged packages this is a problem obviousely. Should I file a bug report against the bug system? (Filing a bug-report against myself is hard in this case because I can't fix it ;-).) Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Two maintainer entrys in "bug reports by maintainer"
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 01:12:21PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > * Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (1 outstanding Bug) > * Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (1 outstanding Bug) > > The e-mail addresses are both valid, but it's the same maintainer > (at least I get the mail from both :-) ). > > It is my task to use always the same address or is it a bug in the > bug system? Neither. Do as you wish :) Personally I prefer using a unique Maintainer: field in all of my packages. -- enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
Two maintainer entrys in "bug reports by maintainer"
Hello cited from Debian bug reports by maintainer This page lists the package maintainers against whose packages there are outstanding, fowarded or recently-closed bug reports. A maintainer --> by the way here is a typo. ... * Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (1 outstanding Bug) * Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (1 outstanding Bug) ... The e-mail addresses are both valid, but it's the same maintainer (at least I get the mail from both :-) ). It is my task to use always the same address or is it a bug in the bug system? Kind regards Andreas.
Re: Bug reports by maintainer and package
Ian Jackson writes: Ian> Below is a listing generated by a new version of the bug summaries Ian> script. Ian> Ian> What do people think of it ? I like it and prefer it over the old format. Two small glitches: - Nils Rennebarth has two entries (the very first and a bigger one further down - An acct bug (#1738) is assigned to me even though I marked it done. It's not in last Friday's list. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
Bug reports by maintainer and package
Below is a listing generated by a new version of the bug summaries script. What do people think of it ? I currently have the following crontab entries for generating bug summaries to debian-devel: 23 16 * * 5 /home/iwj10/things/debian-bugs/scripts/mailsummary undone 23 16 * * 2 /home/iwj10/things/debian-bugs/scripts/mailsummary veryold I'm inclined to replace the Wednesday posting of only the very old bug reports with this new listing by maintainer and package, and to leave the full reports sorted by age on Friday. The reports sorted by age now list the package maintainer where the originator used to be. It's interesting to note that the people who are most involved with the critical parts of the project are also those with the most outstanding bug reports against their packages. I think I shall be following Ian M.'s lead and asking for some volunteers ... Ian. Package Ref Subject Nils Rennebarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (1 bugs): gpm 1669 shutdown hangs on gpm -k until mouse is moved [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy R. Thomas) (1 bugs): dld 1488 dld control file dsccription problem Erick Branderhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (1 bugs): hyperlatex 1719 hyperlatex recommends ghostscript - nonexistent package Robert Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (1 bugs): ftape1615 ftape package contains only source Giuseppe Vacanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2 bugs): diald1611 Diald 0.10 man pages diald1613 diald: minor typo in config-script Robert Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2 bugs): strace 1205 strace doesn't compile with newer kernel sources strace 1539 strace source package does not compile [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David H. Silber) (2 bugs): fortune 1118 fortune is setuid games ?! uucp 1265 Misc. uucp bugs Christian Linhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2 bugs): tgif 1821 tgif should read /etc/papersize xarchie 1857 xarchie doesn't honour default archie server setting Kenny Wickstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2 bugs): tin 1619 tin depends on inn | inewsinn | inews tin 1753 trn recommends, instead of depends Helmut Geyer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2 bugs): ghostview1225 ghostviewR6 bad name, depends on xbaseR6, ghostviewR5 exist xxgdb1231 xxgdbR6 bad name, depends on xbaseR6, xxgdbR5 exists Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2 bugs): acct 1737 missing man pages for accouting commands acct 1738 `errors' in /usr/info/accounting [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D.J. Gregor) (2 bugs): cdtool 1322 cdtool: wrong permissions for manpages workbone 1381 workbone postinst fails Matt Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (3 bugs): lrzsz1635 revision should be package_revision lrzsz1727 Man-pages lrzsz1729 Naming of commands [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robinson, Jim) (3 bugs): ifrench 1233 Bad french.hash file in ifrench.deb igerman, w 1793 german.hash has wron magic number wenglish 416 perl doesn't flush output automatically Kenneth MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (3 bugs): ispell 1627 ispell copyright file ispell 1715 ispell recommends word-list - nonexistent package linuxdoc-s 1830 version of doc behind linuxdoc package [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D.J. Gregor) (4 bugs): gnuplot 1662 gnuplot won't run xfig 1224 xfig depends on xpmR6, xbaseR6 xfig 1408 xfig always asks about colour/mono xfig 1453 `xfig' should depend on `X11R6' Alvar Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (4 bugs): man 1735 apropos(1) segfaults man 1751 corrupt man page for dc man 1805 man package problem man 1841 man_db problems David Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (4 bugs): expect 1836 expect core dumps ldso 1646 ldso (or dpkg) "bug" snmp 1820 snmp postinst backgrounds start-stop-daemon ? snmp 1824 snmpd not killed by pre/post-rm, ignored SIGTERM Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (4 bugs): minicom 1636 minicom cant file /etc/minicom.users minicom 1661 minicom should use /etc for config files minicom 1679 Minicom has default lockfile in /var/spool/uucp minicom 1728 Depencies&Conflicts [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D.J. Gregor) (4 bugs): unclutter1779 unclutter - I need -noevents vim 1133 vim asks unnecessary and unclear question vim 1187 Various `vi' versions trample on each other. vim 1405 vim doesn't use update-alternatives Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (5 bugs): syslogd 786 syslogd gone awol syslogd 1474 syslogd uses default settings for update-rc.d syslogd 1531 syslogd continues to write to old file after savelog syslogd 1813 /var/log/news should exist syslogd 1833 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: patch for Debian sysklogd package] Anders Chrigstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (5 bugs): bison1553 Bison: #include problem bison1554 Bison: confusing documentation bison
