Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
* Mike Hommey | On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:18:25AM +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | For the first, there are well working mirror scripts that prevent that, | | Why on earth aren't they in place on official mirrors ? I *always* get | 404 errors for new packages at the time Packages has been updated on | ftp.fr.debian.org, at least. Ask the mirror admin. Most mirrors aren't under Debian's control. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050403 14:55]: I think he's talking about mirrored Packages files being updated before all the packages get mirrored and/or arch all packages reaching the archive before arch specific builds (except the maintainer's arch), because of buildd queue. For the first, there are well working mirror scripts that prevent that, and for the second, this can be fixed by changing the mirror scripts (there are ideas, but some changes need to be done). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:18:25AM +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050403 14:55]: I think he's talking about mirrored Packages files being updated before all the packages get mirrored and/or arch all packages reaching the archive before arch specific builds (except the maintainer's arch), because of buildd queue. For the first, there are well working mirror scripts that prevent that, Why on earth aren't they in place on official mirrors ? I *always* get 404 errors for new packages at the time Packages has been updated on ftp.fr.debian.org, at least. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
On Sun, April 3, 2005 05:39, John Hasler said: For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer? That's what Unstable is for. Why, if tests can be automated, do we have a need to go through the process of spreading a package to mirrors, have people install it and file bug reports by hand? (Often these reports are a day later already out-of-date because it was just a matter of time.) Isn't one of our strenghts that we can automate what we can so we can use our time for all those tasks that are left? Regards, Thijs Kinkhorst -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:26:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Sun, April 3, 2005 05:39, John Hasler said: For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer? That's what Unstable is for. Why, if tests can be automated, do we have a need to go through the process of spreading a package to mirrors, have people install it and file bug reports by hand? (Often these reports are a day later already out-of-date because it was just a matter of time.) Isn't one of our strenghts that we can automate what we can so we can use our time for all those tasks that are left? Good idea! Let's make a new repository of packages that only receives new packages that have their dependencies fulfilled. We need a good name for such a repository. How about testing? -- Petri Latvala The house of sarcasm signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: It seems there are only minimal checks, so developers can unwittingly upload broken packages. Any numbers where you can proof your claim? Developers are required to test the packages before upload, and I havent noticed any uninstallable package in years. Even if the package is only broken until tomorrow, whereupon the upload will be complete, that too should not be allowed to propagate to the mirrors until ready. This cannot happen, what do you mean? Uploads are integrity checked. Besides, thats what unstable is for, a package does not propagate to testing or stable it has bugs. Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:28:36PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: It seems there are only minimal checks, so developers can unwittingly upload broken packages. Any numbers where you can proof your claim? Developers are required to test the packages before upload, and I havent noticed any uninstallable package in years. Even if the package is only broken until tomorrow, whereupon the upload will be complete, that too should not be allowed to propagate to the mirrors until ready. This cannot happen, what do you mean? Uploads are integrity checked. Besides, thats what unstable is for, a package does not propagate to testing or stable it has bugs. I think he's talking about mirrored Packages files being updated before all the packages get mirrored and/or arch all packages reaching the archive before arch specific builds (except the maintainer's arch), because of buildd queue. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:26:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Sun, April 3, 2005 05:39, John Hasler said: For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer? That's what Unstable is for. Why, if tests can be automated, do we have a need to go through the process of spreading a package to mirrors, have people install it and file bug reports by hand? (Often these reports are a day later already out-of-date because it was just a matter of time.) Isn't one of our strenghts that we can automate what we can so we can use our time for all those tasks that are left? Where do fully automated bug preventing techniques really work in Debian? All places I know either require a serious amount of work to keep it running or require people regularily checking the reports (which is often not done). And note that not installable packages are only a small and not the worst class of bugs - and they are usually reported pretty fast. unstable is unstable and every user of unstable is expected to know what to do when the installation of a package fails. E.g. DSA-177-1 describes a _real_ problem - and this wouldn't have been caught. Regards, Thijs Kinkhorst cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Why, if tests can be automated which tests? Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
It seems there are only minimal checks, so developers can unwittingly upload broken packages. Wouldn't a nightly $ for package in all_of_debian do apt-get --print-uris install $package; done /dev/null 2errors_for_inspection done at Debian Headquarters 'catch' them before they are allowed to go on to the mirrors? Even if the package is only broken until tomorrow, whereupon the upload will be complete, that too should not be allowed to propagate to the mirrors until ready. Package has broken dep on : Why isn't this same apt-get check that the user does, also get done beforehand by the archive patrol? For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer? With an apt-get dependency test done on the archive server, we can easily perform the same 'sniff test' the consumer does before he puts our products in his mouth. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
Dan Jacobson writes: ...Debian Headquarters... There is no such place. Why isn't this same apt-get check that the user does, also get done beforehand by the archive patrol? The users of Unstable are the archive patrol. For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer? That's what Unstable is for. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
