Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Hi Niels, [sorry for the late reply I was on vac] On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 09:52:17AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org gdpc: bugs 713652, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Fixed. gwyddion: bugs 713565, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Hmmm, that's really strange. The bug report was closed Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:07:42 +0200 Seems something is wrong with the script. praat: bugs 713597, flagged for removal in 8.3 days We'll care about this in Debian Med team. r-other-mott-happy: bugs 709190,713284, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Besides the fact that this package should actually removed from testing (perhaps even from Debian - the actual Uploader in our team should take action about this) I noticed that something seems to be wrong in rendering the BTS page. While the first bug (#709190) is mentioned the second one (#713284) is missing on the BTS page: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=r-other-mott-happy Any explanation for this? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131015133558.gi23...@an3as.eu
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 2013-10-15 15:35, Andreas Tille wrote: Hi Niels, [sorry for the late reply I was on vac] Hi, No worries. On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 09:52:17AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org gdpc: bugs 713652, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Fixed. Thank you, gwyddion: bugs 713565, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Hmmm, that's really strange. The bug report was closed Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:07:42 +0200 Seems something is wrong with the script. I am more inclined to believe that you experienced one of the quirks of the Debian BTS. According to the BTS, it is: Fixed in version src:gwyddion/2.28-2 In the bottom of the bug log you will find: No longer marked as found in versions gwyddion/2.28-2 meaning that the bug was (or, rather, used to be) marked as fixed in the same version as it was found. The BTS handles this by *silently ignoring the fixed version* and thus concluding the bug is still in 2.28-2. It then hands that off to Britney and the auto-removal script, which will consider 2.28-2 as buggy as well. praat: bugs 713597, flagged for removal in 8.3 days We'll care about this in Debian Med team. \o/ r-other-mott-happy: bugs 709190,713284, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Besides the fact that this package should actually removed from testing (perhaps even from Debian - the actual Uploader in our team should take action about this) I noticed that something seems to be wrong in rendering the BTS page. While the first bug (#709190) is mentioned the second one (#713284) is missing on the BTS page: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=r-other-mott-happy Any explanation for this? Well, they are merged into each other and thus the BTS decided only to show one of them in the bug page. However, both bugs appear when you reference then directly via [1] and [2]. Kind regards Andreas. ~Niels [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=713284 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=709190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/525d48df.3060...@thykier.net
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Hi, On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: gwyddion: bugs 713565, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Hmmm, that's really strange. The bug report was closed Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:07:42 +0200 Seems something is wrong with the script. I am more inclined to believe that you experienced one of the quirks of the Debian BTS. According to the BTS, it is: Fixed in version src:gwyddion/2.28-2 In the bottom of the bug log you will find: No longer marked as found in versions gwyddion/2.28-2 meaning that the bug was (or, rather, used to be) marked as fixed in the same version as it was found. The BTS handles this by *silently ignoring the fixed version* and thus concluding the bug is still in 2.28-2. It then hands that off to Britney and the auto-removal script, which will consider 2.28-2 as buggy as well. Ahhh, I was missing this somehow. I rebuilded the current package 2.32-2 in testing and unstable without any problem and thus closed the bug (now hopefully for all versions). rendering the BTS page. While the first bug (#709190) is mentioned the second one (#713284) is missing on the BTS page: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=r-other-mott-happy Any explanation for this? Well, they are merged into each other and thus the BTS decided only to show one of them in the bug page. However, both bugs appear when you reference then directly via [1] and [2]. Hmm, OK, I have noticed the merge. However, the BTS behaviour seems to be new to me. But thinking about it it is reasonable. Thanks for all your release team work Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131015144308.go23...@an3as.eu
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
xxxterm: bugs 718074, flagged for removal in 8.3 days I use debian offline so it is of no consequence to me however I just wanted to say. xxxterm (now xombrero) is by far my favourite browser and rediculously faster than any other browser whilst still being highly useful and with better whitelisting control (javascript, cookies) by default too. Not a user interface for everyone in being primarily keyboard based but highly functional. In fact where firefox is almost useless on an old thinkpad, xombrero is quite snappy. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/380101.59925...@smtp145.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 17:34 +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: xxxterm: bugs 718074, flagged for removal in 8.3 days I use debian offline so it is of no consequence to me however I just wanted to say. xxxterm (now xombrero) is by far my favourite browser and rediculously faster than any other browser whilst still being highly useful and with better whitelisting control (javascript, cookies) by default too. Not a user interface for everyone in being primarily keyboard based but highly functional. In fact where firefox is almost useless on an old thinkpad, xombrero is quite snappy. Hi, is it possible to adopt this package? Since I'm not DM yet, I will need a sponsor for uploading later on, when the latest release of xombrero is packaged. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1381859486.3860.51.ca...@g3620.my.own.domain
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Svante Signell wrote: Hi, is it possible to adopt this package? The package is not orphaned yet, so that will have to happen first: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#orphaning When it is orphaned you can adopt it: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#adopting Since I'm not DM yet, I will need a sponsor for uploading later on http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6g8karfktcbthpetde2xlt8kxzxvpf0dbifstvcscj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:36:57PM +, Bill Allombert wrote:
Did you try to run rc-alert recently ? The output is totally overwhelming
for something that is to run on several computers and several times by
month. Most of the bugs are reported against important packages that cannot
be removed anyway. This do not give good clue about packages that could be
NMUed with positive effect. The removal list is much more useful in this
regard, if only because once a package is removed, the maintainer can hardly
complain about a NMU.
What would you think about some variant of the attached (qd) script? It
fetches the removal list and matches it to your system. That way it
excludes packages that you would not NMU and it only lists packages that
lack attention.
In order to meet in the middle maybe rc-alert could gain an option to
sort bugs their last change? That would essentially boil down to the
same heuristic as is being used for generating removal hints: Bugs that
are not touched in a long time.
Helmut
#!/usr/bin/python
import urllib
import contextlib
import os
import yaml
pkgs = set()
with contextlib.closing(os.popen(dpkg-query -W -f '${Source:Package}\\n', r)) as f:
for line in f:
pkgs.add(line.strip())
with contextlib.closing(urllib.urlopen(http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.yaml.cgi;)) as f:
data = yaml.safe_load(f)
for key, value in data.items():
if key in pkgs:
print(%s: %r % (key, value))
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 08/10/13 at 19:36 +, Bill Allombert wrote: On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:58:03AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: rc-alert has existed for quite some time and it gets the alert in *ahead* of package removal. It alerts users to the real problem - the RC BUG! Did you try to run rc-alert recently ? The output is totally overwhelming for something that is to run on several computers and several times by month. Most of the bugs are reported against important packages that cannot be removed anyway. This do not give good clue about packages that could be NMUed with positive effect. The removal list is much more useful in this regard, if only because once a package is removed, the maintainer can hardly complain about a NMU. I agree that we could use more visibility for packages removed from testing due to RC bugs, or packages that are going to be removed from testing. This is something that could easily be implemented in how-can-i-help[1]. I've filed #725819 to remember about it. Lucas [1] how-can-i-help's description: how-can-i-help hooks into APT to list opportunities for contributions to Debian (orphaned packages, bugs tagged 'gift') for packages installed locally, after each APT invocation. It can also be invoked directly, and then lists all opportunities for contribution (not just the new ones). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131009104446.ga21...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 2013-10-08 00:04, Bill Allombert wrote: [...] So while it is possible that the _maintainer_ is not needing a friendly remainder, other interested third-party might. Cheers, Bill. Hi, I, genuinely, hope that these removals-warnings will make people fix bugs pro-actively rather than reactive. From my PoV, more visibility and focus on these bugs is welcome. However, I know from experience that I will not be able to maintain a manual friendly reminder (at least not in a timely/reliable fashion), which is why I made this a one-time thing. You (as in anybody) are more than welcome to implement a weekly-reminder thing or so. Not sure if people would welcome such a thing on debian-devel, but having some way of at least opt-in on such a reminder/warning would be a great idea. That said, as much as I think it is a great idea I cannot volunteer to do it. I already have a sufficient d-release backlog ... :-/ Even the current implementation was out-sourced. On a related note, kudos to Ivo De Decker for being the Do'er behind automatic removals! ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52554881.7060...@thykier.net
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013 22:04:21 + Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 09:52:17AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: This is a friendly reminder. If you are listed below, then the listed packages of yours will be automatically removed from testing within 15 days. The first batch of automatic removals will happen in about 8 days. Please remember that fixing your RC bug(s) can sometimes be as simple as correcting the metadata of the bugs (see also #725321[0]) or (where inflated) downgrade the severity of the bug. This mail was a one-time public service annoucement; I *do not* intend to send out reminders in the future. Remember that you can pull the same data from [1] or [2]. I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. This, then, cause stable releases to be missing packages that users are depending on, which reduce the value of the distribution. rc-alert has existed for quite some time and it gets the alert in *ahead* of package removal. It alerts users to the real problem - the RC BUG! $ man 1 rc-alert rc-alert - check for installed packages with release-critical bugs Yes, it's in devscripts but publicising that the best way to install devscripts is with the --no-install-recommends option to apt-get is all that's needed to cover that issue. I'm more concerned with this assumption: the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. The people with the package installed are those most interested in restoring the package? Honestly? By restoring, I assume you simply mean ignore the RC issue - seeing as nobody seems to care to fix it - and give me a broken package so that I don't have to do anything. The removal is not the problem, it's the consequence. The RC bug is the problem, it is *that* which people who care about the package need to be made aware. The removal is simply one way to fix the RC bug. Those who may care about avoiding the removal must fix the bug some other way. Don't panic about the symptom, fix the cause. (A huge thank you to Niels for doing this task - he really does not deserve to be taking all the flak as the messenger.) -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Hi Bill, Bill Allombert wrote (07 Oct 2013 22:04:21 GMT) : I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. I believe there are good chances that this kind of people realize that there's a problem at some point, if they're particularly interested in this package: either they're directly affected by the RC bugs affecting this package (it was removed for a reason, uh), or they'll miss some new feature implemented in a newer upstream version and will wonder why it's not in testing yet, or they'll suffer from some other bug and will have a look at the PTS. In all of this cases, $PACKAGE is not in testing anymore is likely to be a stronger help is needed signal for them than the mere presence of RC bugs. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/857gdop4tb@boum.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 8 Oct 2013, at 07:58, Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org wrote: The removal is simply one way to fix the RC bug I'm broadly in favour of this course of action but in no way does it fix the bugs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/11dd52b6-4d52-4870-8a2b-e159fe829...@debian.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Bill Allombert wrote: I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. Would this be addressed by building some mechanism (making tombstone packages comes to mind, but there are many options) for apt to prompt to remove packages that were removed in the archive? I find myself having to do some package-origin queries with aptitude and some cross-checking with the PTS _anyway_ when upgrading a nontrivially-complicated system (including one that ever ran testing) between releases, so this seems like it's likely to be worth building regardless. -- Geoffrey Thomas http://ldpreload.com geo...@ldpreload.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1310080940110.16...@dr-wily.mit.edu
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Geoffrey Thomas geo...@ldpreload.com wrote: On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Bill Allombert wrote: I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. Would this be addressed by building some mechanism (making tombstone packages comes to mind, but there are many options) for apt to prompt to remove packages that were removed in the archive? You mean beyond apt-get autoremove? apt already declares which packages could be automatically removed. Other managers like synaptic have a list of local and obsolete packages and packages no longer listed in any of the apt sources will show up as local or obsolete. Otherwise, define the archive - very few machines have a single apt source or even apt sources which only point at a Debian mirror. How does apt know which archive to look at? what about derivatives and beyond? Some users will experience the bug which caused the removal. Others will find that apt removes the package during an upgrade. If the rest don't notice, is there any harm done? -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:58:03AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: rc-alert has existed for quite some time and it gets the alert in *ahead* of package removal. It alerts users to the real problem - the RC BUG! Did you try to run rc-alert recently ? The output is totally overwhelming for something that is to run on several computers and several times by month. Most of the bugs are reported against important packages that cannot be removed anyway. This do not give good clue about packages that could be NMUed with positive effect. The removal list is much more useful in this regard, if only because once a package is removed, the maintainer can hardly complain about a NMU. The people with the package installed are those most interested in restoring the package? Honestly? By restoring, I assume you simply mean ignore the RC issue - seeing as nobody seems to care to fix it - and give me a broken package so that I don't have to do anything. I am not sure how you justify your assumption. At least, my assumption is that people using a package are more interested by its availabilty that people that do not use it. (A huge thank you to Niels for doing this task - he really does not deserve to be taking all the flak as the messenger.) If you refer to my email, then you completly missed its purpose (to encourage Niels to continue to post the list of removal to this list). Cheers, -- Bill. ballo...@debian.org Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131008193657.ga29...@master.debian.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Le 08/10/2013 18:46, Geoffrey Thomas a écrit : On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Bill Allombert wrote: I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. Would this be addressed by building some mechanism (making tombstone packages comes to mind, but there are many options) for apt to prompt to remove packages that were removed in the archive? For myself, I often use a non-official package made by a friend: the apt-moreutils pacakge[1] and, more precisely, the apt-origins tool in this package. It allows me to easily see how many and which packages come from each of my APT sources. If a version of a package is not in any of my sources (either because I do not upgrade it or because it disappeared from the APT repo), it is listed into the Installed catch-all final group. Regards, Vincent [1] http://debian.dubacq.fr/html/srcpkg.apt-moreutils.html (truncated) output example on a not up-to-date machine: vdanjean@eyak:~$ apt-origins ,--. | Debian FR unstable | `--' Too many packages (3933). Use --tabular or --lines=X (x=3933). ,--. | Unofficial Multimedia Packages unstable| `--' autopano-sift-c deb-multimedia-keyring ffmpeg flashplayer-mozilla [...] ,--. | Debian FR testing | `--' bsd-mailx gedit gedit-common geoip-database git-buildpackage gnupg gpgv [...] ,--. | Debian FR stable | `--' biblatex gir1.2-tracker-0.14 gnome-mag libatspi1.0-0 libclucene0ldbl libdconf0 ,--. | installed | `--' doc-linux-text gcj-4.7-base gcj-4.7-jre gcj-4.7-jre-headless gcj-4.7-jre-lib [...] = it seems I will need to remove all gcc 4.7 stuff -- Vincent Danjean GPG key ID 0x9D025E87 vdanj...@debian.org GPG key fingerprint: FC95 08A6 854D DB48 4B9A 8A94 0BF7 7867 9D02 5E87 Unofficial pkgs: http://moais.imag.fr/membres/vincent.danjean/deb.html APT repo: deb http://people.debian.org/~vdanjean/debian unstable main -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/525466f0.9090...@free.fr
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 19:36:57 + Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 07:58:03AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: rc-alert has existed for quite some time and it gets the alert in *ahead* of package removal. It alerts users to the real problem - the RC BUG! Did you try to run rc-alert recently ? I ran it during drafting of the reply. I run it before and during every BSP. I run it intermittently, especially once a release freeze starts. It's usually the second filter on which RC bugs I think about looking at. Naturally, the first filter is ones in my own packages, via DDPO. The output is totally overwhelming for something that is to run on several computers and several times by month. Compared to the volume of this list? Honestly? The removal email is large, it contains a long, long list (sadly) of *source* package names and no matching list of binaries when anyone running a Debian box and worrying about packages disappearing only actually has a list of *binaries* to check. rc-alert handles this for you. If the source package builds a binary not on your system, it excludes it. The email is fine for it's purpose - alerting maintainers to problems in their source packages. Alerting others about problems with binary packages is a different problem with a different solution. Most of the bugs are reported against important packages that cannot be removed anyway. This do not give good clue about packages that could be NMUed with positive effect. The list of removals has nothing to do with NMUs - that's a job for rc-alert and UDD. The relevant RC bugs were filed long before the packages appear in the removal list. There's no need to wait that long, so scan rc-alert and work on patches in advance of removal if that is what is the real issue. The removal list is much more useful in this regard, if only because once a package is removed, the maintainer can hardly complain about a NMU. After removal? If there's going to be an NMU, do it before removal and save work for the release and ftp teams. The people with the package installed are those most interested in restoring the package? Honestly? By restoring, I assume you simply mean ignore the RC issue - seeing as nobody seems to care to fix it - and give me a broken package so that I don't have to do anything. I am not sure how you justify your assumption. At least, my assumption is that people using a package are more interested by its availabilty that people that do not use it. (A huge thank you to Niels for doing this task - he really does not deserve to be taking all the flak as the messenger.) If you refer to my email, then you completly missed its purpose (to encourage Niels to continue to post the list of removal to this list). I didn't miss that at all - notifications on a list with the volumes of debian-devel are much easier to miss than something which is directly relevant to what is installed on your own machine. Why scan through several thousand emails in the -devel folder to find this thread - especially when the thread contains lots of messages like this which spend time talking about the reminder procedure and not about the actual bugs or the packages to be removed. How do you compare the removal list against the list of installed packages on each machine? That's just as much work as parsing the rc-alert output to exclude some packages. Inventive use of existing rc-alert options may well be able to remove listings for packages with certain criteria. I'm happy with rc-alert as-is but if it isn't enough for everyone, I'm sure a patch would be useful. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 07/10/13 23:04, Bill Allombert wrote: I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. This, then, cause stable releases to be missing packages that users are depending on, which reduce the value of the distribution. `aptitude search '?obsolete'` is useful after upgrading a system to a new stable release, a trick I learned from: http://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/02/07/debian-cleanup-tip-2-get-rid-of-obsolete-packages/ Not directly related to this: a side effect of running debsecan is that if I see security issues accumulating for some package, I would likely check the PTS to see why it remains unfixed, or decide to remove or replace the package with something else that's still maintained. So if `aptitude search '?obsolete'` was run periodically, like debsecan, it could email the system admin when new items appear on the obsoletes list. I imagine that'd be a good way to notify of the situation being described here? Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52549549.1050...@pyro.eu.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Le Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:51:42PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer a écrit : I really doubt that possibly interested people will subscribe to all the packages they are interested in. Hello everybody, in one way or the other, there will always be some people who miss the information because it is sent in a channel that they are not familiar with. I think that the best solution is to have the information available in a systematic manner, and then let people rely on that source to automate display or messaging in the communication channel that is suitable for the use case that they want to support. This would make it easy for volunteers to write a script that periodically sends emails to this list about upcoming removals, or to add this information to the periodical WNPP email, so that it does not add to the traffic. By the way, I think that the automated removals (and the automated autopkg testing) are a big step forward. Let me take this opportunity to thank to the Release team for this ! Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131008233016.gd26...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013, Geoffrey Thomas wrote: Would this be addressed by building some mechanism (making tombstone packages comes to mind, but there are many options) for apt to prompt to remove packages that were removed in the archive? It is already addressed by the user-oriented package management frontends. E.g. aptitude lists them separately. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131008234424.gb...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 09:52:17AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: Hi, This is a friendly reminder. If you are listed below, then the listed packages of yours will be automatically removed from testing within 15 days. The first batch of automatic removals will happen in about 8 days. Please remember that fixing your RC bug(s) can sometimes be as simple as correcting the metadata of the bugs (see also #725321[0]) or (where inflated) downgrade the severity of the bug. This mail was a one-time public service annoucement; I *do not* intend to send out reminders in the future. Remember that you can pull the same data from [1] or [2]. I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. This, then, cause stable releases to be missing packages that users are depending on, which reduce the value of the distribution. This is not a new problem, and it is not entirely clear whether such early removal will reduce or increase this issue. However we should address it if we want Debian stable releases to be something users can rely on. So while it is possible that the _maintainer_ is not needing a friendly remainder, other interested third-party might. Cheers, Bill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131007220421.ga17...@master.debian.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Hi, On Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2013, Bill Allombert wrote: So while it is possible that the _maintainer_ is not needing a friendly remainder, other interested third-party might. anyone interested in a package can opt-in via the PTS... cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Tuesday 08 October 2013 01:51:41 Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2013, Bill Allombert wrote: So while it is possible that the _maintainer_ is not needing a friendly remainder, other interested third-party might. anyone interested in a package can opt-in via the PTS... I really doubt that possibly interested people will subscribe to all the packages they are interested in. -- Antiguo proverbio del Viejo Machi: Prefiero que mi cerebro esté en la cresta de la ola, y mi PC un paso atrás sirviéndolo y no tener mi PC en el 'estado del arte' y mi cerebro un paso atrás asistiéndola. http://www.grulic.org.ar/lurker/message/20090507.020516.ffda0441.es.html Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Hi, This is a friendly reminder. If you are listed below, then the listed packages of yours will be automatically removed from testing within 15 days. The first batch of automatic removals will happen in about 8 days. Please remember that fixing your RC bug(s) can sometimes be as simple as correcting the metadata of the bugs (see also #725321[0]) or (where inflated) downgrade the severity of the bug. This mail was a one-time public service annoucement; I *do not* intend to send out reminders in the future. Remember that you can pull the same data from [1] or [2]. ~Niels [0] You may (or may not) find the following blog post about the BTS interesting as well: http://rhonda.deb.at/blog/debian/on-BTS-usage.html It is admittedly more focused on stable, but some of the remarks may still apply to bugs filed against your package. That post can (also) help you clean up your package's BTS page and ensuring that your packages have no open RC bugs still affecting stable. [1] http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.cgi [2] http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.yaml.cgi 8 8 8 Adam C. Powell, IV hazel...@debian.org babel: bugs 723789, flagged for removal in 12.7 days A Mennucc1 mennu...@debian.org wfrog: bugs 717328, flagged for removal in 8.3 days AGOSTINI Yves agost...@univ-metz.fr libjifty-plugin-comment-perl: bugs 720789, flagged for removal in 8.3 days libjifty-plugin-oauth-perl: bugs 720791, flagged for removal in 8.3 days libjifty-plugin-wikitoolbar-perl: bugs 720792, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Adrian Knoth a...@drcomp.erfurt.thur.de timemachine: bugs 713592, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Agney Lopes Roth Ferraz ag...@debian.org hardinfo: bugs 713717, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Al Nikolov cl...@debian.org trac-datefieldplugin: bugs 714985, flagged for removal in 8.3 days trac-icalviewplugin: bugs 714985, flagged for removal in 8.3 days trac-wikitablemacro: bugs 714985, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Alastair McKinstry mckins...@debian.org gramadoir: bugs 723881, flagged for removal in 13.7 days Alejandro Garrido Mota garridom...@gmail.com libnet-dri-perl: bugs 710954, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Alessandro De Zorzi l...@nonlontano.it libapache2-mod-ruid2: bugs 709465, flagged for removal in 8.3 days phamm: bugs 669841, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Alessio Treglia ales...@debian.org din: bugs 718165, flagged for removal in 8.3 days jack-rack: bugs 705053,713468, flagged for removal in 8.3 days lv2proc: bugs 713715, flagged for removal in 8.3 days mp3fs: bugs 713614, flagged for removal in 8.3 days timemachine: bugs 713592, flagged for removal in 8.3 days transmageddon: bugs 713205, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Alexander Reichle-Schmehl toli...@debian.org nagvis: bugs 709956, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Alexander Wirt formo...@debian.org hotkeys: bugs 713671, flagged for removal in 8.3 days nagvis: bugs 709956, flagged for removal in 8.3 days nsca: bugs 721644, flagged for removal in 8.3 days vlock: bugs 702705, flagged for removal in 11.2 days Alexandre Quessy alexan...@quessy.net supercollider: bugs 713670, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Anders Lennartsson and...@lennartsson.se setpwc: bugs 717129, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Andreas Barth a...@not.so.argh.org dpkg-sig: bugs 723867, flagged for removal in 13.4 days Andreas Hildebrandt andreas.hildebra...@uni-mainz.de ball: bugs 720681,718144, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Andreas Rottmann ro...@debian.org g-wrap: bugs 713203, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Andreas Tille ti...@debian.org gdpc: bugs 713652, flagged for removal in 8.3 days gwyddion: bugs 713565, flagged for removal in 8.3 days praat: bugs 713597, flagged for removal in 8.3 days r-other-mott-happy: bugs 709190,713284, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Andrei Zavada johnhom...@gmail.com aghermann: bugs 713574, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Andres Mejia ame...@debian.org vdpau-video: bugs 713612, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Andrew Lee (æå¥ç§) ajq...@debian.org lxappearance-obconf: bugs 722112, flagged for removal in 8.3 days lxlauncher: bugs 722110, flagged for removal in 8.3 days scim-chewing: bugs 707442, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Andrew McMillan a...@debian.org davical: bugs 717043, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Andrey Rahmatullin w...@wrar.name mpdscribble: bugs 710066, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Andy Spencer andy753...@gmail.com aweather: bugs 713613, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Angel Abad an...@debian.org libjavascript-packer-perl: bugs 711629, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org libjavascript-packer-perl: bugs 711629, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Arjan Oosting ar...@debian.org drift: bugs 713313, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Ask Hjorth Larsen asklar...@gmail.com python-ase: bugs 717989,
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Hi, On 06/10/13 08:52, Niels Thykier wrote: kfreebsd-8: bugs 720470,717959,720476, flagged for removal in 14.7 days Not sure why that's appearing in this list because: 1. the package was removed from testing over a month ago at the request of the maintainer, and 2. when that happened the bugs listed were closed? Perhaps this is because the script does not notice 1. and therefore despite 2. it still thinks affected versions are in testing? Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/525144dc.6090...@pyro.eu.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 2013-10-06 13:09, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Hi, On 06/10/13 08:52, Niels Thykier wrote: kfreebsd-8: bugs 720470,717959,720476, flagged for removal in 14.7 days Not sure why that's appearing in this list because: 1. the package was removed from testing over a month ago at the request of the maintainer, and 2. when that happened the bugs listed were closed? Perhaps this is because the script does not notice 1. and therefore despite 2. it still thinks affected versions are in testing? Regards, Hey, Thanks for reporting this. It looks like this is caused by kfreebsd-8 being marked with Extra-Source-Only: yes, presumably because something lists it in Built-Using. For most parts it means the package is already removed but not all tools seem to recognise this e.g. the PTS, the BTS (allegedly) and by extension the auto-removal script. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52518ce2.9010...@thykier.net
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net (2013-10-06): It looks like this is caused by kfreebsd-8 being marked with Extra-Source-Only: yes, presumably because something lists it in Built-Using. For most parts it means the package is already removed but not all tools seem to recognise this e.g. the PTS, the BTS (allegedly) and by extension the auto-removal script. $ apt-cache show debian-installer-7.0-netboot-kfreebsd-amd64|grep Built-Using|grep -o 'kfreebsd\S\+' kfreebsd-8 kfreebsd-9 Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 06/10/13 08:52, Niels Thykier wrote: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) g...@debian.org vice: bugs 693641, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Bug #693641 is another interesting edge case: Found in version vice/2.3.dfsg-4 (testing, unstable, stable) Fixed in version vice/2.4.dfsg-1 (unstable) Marked as done But it didn't quite build everywhere - kfreebsd-amd64 and s390 still have out-of-date 2.3.dfsg-4 binaries in sid. I'm not sure if this logic was intended, but it actually makes sense: the fixed version cannot migrate to testing and replace the buggy one. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5251bd46.8070...@pyro.eu.org
