Re: Proposed mass bug filing: packages without support for build-arch and build-indep
Hi, On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 1:23 PM Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Unfortunately this is only a warning in lintian, which might explain > why so many packages are still affected. After a reasonably broad and balanced discussion on Libera#debian-devel, those targets are now required. [1] The Archive team still runs an older Lintian version (and may for a while) so there should be plenty of time for uploads without auto-rejection. > in that case let's wait At the time of writing, 264 sources were still affected [2] which was down from 421 in November. It worked out more or less to the monthly decline of 85 sources originally predicted by N. Thykier in 2013. [3] Lintian's tag description was amended with the simplest possible fix, which has two-lines. [4] They are reasonable addition to sources that do not receive a lot of attention. > file these bugs with severity "important" and then raise the severity a > month later The bugs were already serious, and therefore release-critical, when I found them. Thank you, everyone, for making the best operating system the world has ever seen. Let's keep it together! Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/23f836f91c03b78df76743fc002a105403a5bc14 [2] Scroll down, https://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-missing-recommended-target [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=657390#45 [4] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-missing-required-target
Re: Proposed mass bug filing: packages without support for build-arch and build-indep
Hi, On 05/11/21 at 21:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to propose a MBF with severity:serious for the above issue. > build-arch and build-indep are required targets according to Debian > Policy section 4.9. This rule was introduced in Policy version 3.9.4, > released in 2012. > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules > > There are 421 affected packages in unstable (389 in testing as of > 2021-10-01). > The list of affected packages according to lintian is > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-missing-recommended-target > A dd-list is included below. > > Unfortunately this is only a warning in lintian, which might explain > why so many packages are still affected. > > I have no strong feelings about this requirement, but I see it as a good > opportunity to identify packages whose packaging probably need a > refresh. Therefore it is a good target, especially at the beginning of a > release cycle, to either update old cruft or get it removed from the > next stable release. > > This topic was raised back in April on debian-qa@, and saw no > objection back then. See > https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2021/04/msg00014.html (the thread > included other topics). > > The bug template I plan to use is included below. > > I would prefer to file bugs directly with severity:serious, but I'm fine > with starting with severity:important and bumping severity after a month > or two if the release team prefers it, of course. > > - Lucas Bugs have been filed: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=missing-build-arch-indep;users=debian...@lists.debian.org https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=na&merged=ign&fnewerval=7&flastmodval=7&fusertag=only&fusertagtag=missing-build-arch-indep&fusertaguser=debian-qa%40lists.debian.org&allbugs=1&cpopcon=1&cseverity=1&ckeypackage=1&ctags=1&caffected=1&clastupload=1&sortby=id&sorto=asc&format=html#results - Lucas signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed mass bug filing: packages without support for build-arch and build-indep
On 06/11/2021 12:40, Simon McVittie wrote: On Sat, 06 Nov 2021 at 11:31:25 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 05/11/2021 21:22, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: build-arch and build-indep are required targets according to Debian Policy section 4.9. ... Unfortunately this is only a warning in lintian, which might explain why so many packages are still affected. lintian should move those targets to the debian-rules-missing-required-target tag. That request is #657390 (in cc). When this was discussed some years ago, Niels Thykier pointed out that debian-rules-missing-required-target is on the ftp team's list of Lintian tags that cause automatic rejection[1], so making that change in Lintian would make it impossible to do a sourceful upload of the affected packages (for example to fix some unrelated RC issue) without also adding the required targets. This does not necessarily mean the Lintian change is a bad idea, it's just something we should be aware of - expanding the scope of autorejections should be intentional rather than accidental. Ack, in that case let's wait until this mbf is done and some time is given for the packages to get fixed. After that, I think this should become an error and autorejection. Cheers, Emilio
Re: Proposed mass bug filing: packages without support for build-arch and build-indep
On Sat, 06 Nov 2021 at 11:31:25 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 05/11/2021 21:22, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > build-arch and build-indep are required targets according to Debian > > Policy section 4.9. ... > > Unfortunately this is only a warning in lintian, which might explain > > why so many packages are still affected. > > lintian should move those targets to the debian-rules-missing-required-target > tag. That request is #657390 (in cc). When this was discussed some years ago, Niels Thykier pointed out that debian-rules-missing-required-target is on the ftp team's list of Lintian tags that cause automatic rejection[1], so making that change in Lintian would make it impossible to do a sourceful upload of the affected packages (for example to fix some unrelated RC issue) without also adding the required targets. This does not necessarily mean the Lintian change is a bad idea, it's just something we should be aware of - expanding the scope of autorejections should be intentional rather than accidental. smcv [1] https://ftp-master.debian.org/static/lintian.tags
Re: Proposed mass bug filing: packages without support for build-arch and build-indep
On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 11:31:25AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > I think severity serious is fine if you use an appropriate Version so that > this won't block testing migration. I would still prefer if this was filed > at important severity, and raised to serious after a month or so. given (too) many maintainers (sometimes) react very emotionally to serious bugs filed against "their" packages and given we're early in the release cycle and given this effects some hundred packages I think it would be better to file these bugs with severity "important" and then raise the severity a month later (and announce this in each filed bug from the start.) This will achieve the same effect from an archive perspective and is hardly any different (after 8 years in policy) nor any more work. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ The apocalypse is here now, it’s just not equally distributed. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposed mass bug filing: packages without support for build-arch and build-indep
Hi Lucas, On 05/11/2021 21:22, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Hi, I'd like to propose a MBF with severity:serious for the above issue. build-arch and build-indep are required targets according to Debian Policy section 4.9. This rule was introduced in Policy version 3.9.4, released in 2012. https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#main-building-script-debian-rules There are 421 affected packages in unstable (389 in testing as of 2021-10-01). The list of affected packages according to lintian is https://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-missing-recommended-target A dd-list is included below. Thanks for looking at this. Unfortunately this is only a warning in lintian, which might explain why so many packages are still affected. lintian should move those targets to the debian-rules-missing-required-target tag. I have no strong feelings about this requirement, but I see it as a good opportunity to identify packages whose packaging probably need a refresh. Therefore it is a good target, especially at the beginning of a release cycle, to either update old cruft or get it removed from the next stable release. This topic was raised back in April on debian-qa@, and saw no objection back then. See https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2021/04/msg00014.html (the thread included other topics). The bug template I plan to use is included below. I would prefer to file bugs directly with severity:serious, but I'm fine with starting with severity:important and bumping severity after a month or two if the release team prefers it, of course. I think severity serious is fine if you use an appropriate Version so that this won't block testing migration. I would still prefer if this was filed at important severity, and raised to serious after a month or so. Cheers, Emilio
