Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On 5/11/07, Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good idea. That might make my reports obsolete, and that would be OK for me. Integrating it into the newly ressurected dehs might be useful too. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 08:14 +0200, Bart Martens wrote: On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 23:16 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Bart Martens] I've thought about adding an column for the versions in experimental, but that is not a high priority to me because this does not change that Debian Unstable is outdated for the listed packages. Uh ... I thought the point of your project was to help package maintainers. Obviously if the maintainer has put something in experimental, he has already done the work to package it! Wouldn't putting the experimental version in your table be _more_ useful than the sid version, if it's newer? It is of course very good that during Etch freeze some packagers have already packaged newer versions in Experimental. I intend to add a column for the versions available in Experimental, to express appropriate appreciation for those packagers. OK for you? Should be better now. http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html It is true that additionally comparing with Experimental makes the report more useful, as this makes the updated packages in Experimental more visible. It also reveals some packages that outdated in both Unstable and Experimental. Regards, Bart Martens signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bart Martens a écrit : On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 08:14 +0200, Bart Martens wrote: On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 23:16 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Bart Martens] I've thought about adding an column for the versions in experimental, but that is not a high priority to me because this does not change that Debian Unstable is outdated for the listed packages. Uh ... I thought the point of your project was to help package maintainers. Obviously if the maintainer has put something in experimental, he has already done the work to package it! Wouldn't putting the experimental version in your table be _more_ useful than the sid version, if it's newer? It is of course very good that during Etch freeze some packagers have already packaged newer versions in Experimental. I intend to add a column for the versions available in Experimental, to express appropriate appreciation for those packagers. OK for you? Should be better now. http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html It is true that additionally comparing with Experimental makes the report more useful, as this makes the updated packages in Experimental more visible. It also reveals some packages that outdated in both Unstable and Experimental. Regards, Bart Martens Hi, There's at least one false positive left. See picard package. Regards, Adam. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGQs8DHNb/igTI5bsRAqJTAJ9i9J97ZvcRqUjK3iG7lDdiyjXpQgCeI8bo 1P4Q0DK6xQLqhTYZCk6gIko= =GZze -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On 5/10/07, Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should be better now. http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html Excellent. For even more usefulness points, this could be integrated into qa.d.o/developer.php - perhaps as extra columns in the watch area that would be initially hidden until you click a javascript link or something. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 09:51 +0200, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote: Hi, There's at least one false positive left. See picard package. Regards, Adam. I verified whether picard [0] would be a false positive on this list [1]. It has no version in Unstable and it has no version in the NEW-queue [2]. It does have an up-to-date version in Experimental. So, picard is listed on the list [1] as outdated in Unstable and with a newer(=up-to-date) version in Experimental. So I think that picard is correctly repored. [0] http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/picard.html [1] http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html [2] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html Regards, Bart Martens signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 18:07 +1000, Paul Wise wrote: On 5/10/07, Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should be better now. http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html Excellent. For even more usefulness points, this could be integrated into qa.d.o/developer.php - perhaps as extra columns in the watch area that would be initially hidden until you click a javascript link or something. Good idea. That might make my reports obsolete, and that would be OK for me. Regards, Bart Martens signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 23:16 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Bart Martens] I've thought about adding an column for the versions in experimental, but that is not a high priority to me because this does not change that Debian Unstable is outdated for the listed packages. Uh ... I thought the point of your project was to help package maintainers. Obviously if the maintainer has put something in experimental, he has already done the work to package it! Wouldn't putting the experimental version in your table be _more_ useful than the sid version, if it's newer? It is of course very good that during Etch freeze some packagers have already packaged newer versions in Experimental. I intend to add a column for the versions available in Experimental, to express appropriate appreciation for those packagers. OK for you? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
[Peter Samuelson] Uh ... I thought the point of your project was to help package maintainers. Obviously if the maintainer has put something in experimental, he has already done the work to package it! From my point of view, the goal of utnubu project is helping package maintainers help our users, and our users are best helped with packages in unstable propagating into testing, and not as much by new and shiny packages resting in experimental. Friendly, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
[Bart Martens] I've thought about adding an column for the versions in experimental, but that is not a high priority to me because this does not change that Debian Unstable is outdated for the listed packages. Uh ... I thought the point of your project was to help package maintainers. Obviously if the maintainer has put something in experimental, he has already done the work to package it! Wouldn't putting the experimental version in your table be _more_ useful than the sid version, if it's newer? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 11:49 +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-01 11:21]: Another approach for identifying packages to be updated in Debian to newer upstream releases is by comparing Debian with Ubuntu. Here is a list of packages that are newer in Ubuntu than in Debian, grouped by maintainer: http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html The first package in your list shows that you're not handling epochs properly. 1.0~rc1-13 vs 2:1.0~rc1-0ubuntu9. Debian isn't out of date here. You need to ignore epochs. The handling of epochs is correct, but some packages have different epochs in Debian and Ubuntu for the same upstream version. I have updated the list to hide packages with identical upstream version numbers but with different epochs. This might hide some real positives but most likely hides more false positives. So thanks for the feedback; this is useful. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
Hello Bart, is there some kind of agreement between Debian and Ubuntu concerning the distribution part of the version? I ask this because you seem to assume that: X.Y.Z-K (Debian) X.Y.Z-L (Ubuntu) X.Y.Z-K (Debian) X.Y.Z-KubuntuA (Ubuntu) (also dfsg stuff doesn't seem to be completely right) I would suggest that you split your report between: 1) A.B.C X.Y.Z and 2) X.Y.Z-KKK X.Y.Z-LLL The 2nd part would be a watchout (yellow) whereas the 1st part would really mean a different version of the software (red). Well... Not always true but good enough :-) (check liblog4net-cil with 1.2.8+1.2.9beta-1 vs. 1.2.9beta-0ubuntu2) Cheers, Eric Bart Martens wrote: On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 11:49 +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-01 11:21]: Another approach for identifying packages to be updated in Debian to newer upstream releases is by comparing Debian with Ubuntu. Here is a list of packages that are newer in Ubuntu than in Debian, grouped by maintainer: http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html The first package in your list shows that you're not handling epochs properly. 1.0~rc1-13 vs 2:1.0~rc1-0ubuntu9. Debian isn't out of date here. You need to ignore epochs. The handling of epochs is correct, but some packages have different epochs in Debian and Ubuntu for the same upstream version. I have updated the list to hide packages with identical upstream version numbers but with different epochs. This might hide some real positives but most likely hides more false positives. So thanks for the feedback; this is useful. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 02:39:27PM +0200, Eric Lavarde wrote: Hello Bart, is there some kind of agreement between Debian and Ubuntu concerning the distribution part of the version? The scheme is described here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment#UbuntuPackages which is linked, along with other pertinent information for Debian developers, from here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuForDebianDevelopers I ask this because you seem to assume that: X.Y.Z-K (Debian) X.Y.Z-L (Ubuntu) If K L, yes, this is true. X.Y.Z-K (Debian) X.Y.Z-KubuntuA (Ubuntu) This should always be true as well. It is sometimes possible that A.B.D-1 is older than A.B.C-2ubuntu1 (where Ubuntu has continued to patch an older version due to a freeze), but for purposes of identifying out-of-date packages, the above should be reasonable assumptions. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
Hello! On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:02:16 +0200, Bart Martens wrote: I have updated the list to hide packages with identical upstream version numbers but with different epochs. This might hide some real positives but most likely hides more false positives. I suggest to take into account experimental, too. Some examples randomly taken... - amarok (same version in Debian experimental and Ubuntu) etch1.4.4-4 sid 1.4.4-4+b1 experimental1.4.5-3 ubuntu 2:1.4.5-0ubuntu7 - gnome-screensaver (the Debian version in experimental is just one upstream release behind Ubuntu) etch2.14.3-3 sid 2.14.3-4 experimental2.18.0-1 ubuntu 2.18.1-0ubuntu1 - liferea (the Debian version in experimental is still lagging behind Ubuntu, but not so far as the etch version) etch1.0.27-2 sid 1.0.27-2 experimental1.2.7-1 ubuntu 1.2.10c-0ubuntu1 - rhythmbox (same version in Debian experimental and Ubuntu) etch 0.9.6-8 sid 0.9.6-9 experimental 0.10.0-1 ubuntu 0.10.0-0ubuntu2 Just my 0.02€... Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 20:36 +0200, Luca Capello wrote: Hello! On Tue, 01 May 2007 14:02:16 +0200, Bart Martens wrote: I have updated the list to hide packages with identical upstream version numbers but with different epochs. This might hide some real positives but most likely hides more false positives. I suggest to take into account experimental, too. Some examples randomly taken... I've thought about adding an column for the versions in experimental, but that is not a high priority to me because this does not change that Debian Unstable is outdated for the listed packages. Still, thanks for this good suggestion, and I'll consider to add that column for experimental to make the report more complete. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
