Re: Bug#726492: debian-edu: Task files are specifying a lot of not existing / renamed packages
Hi, it seems nobody has minded seriously to maintain debian-edu tasks. Any volunteer? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Bug#726492: debian-edu: Task files are specifying a lot of not existing / renamed packages
Hi Holger, On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:44:35AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: On Sonntag, 21. September 2014, Andreas Tille wrote: I'd strongly recommend to spend 3-4 hours on this task. The Blends logfiles I mentioned in the bug report are sufficient help to do it properly. the long list you specified in your original bug report ist not helpful, as it's too long and not dynamically updated. You said it came from the UDD importer - so is there a list where I can see this list updated in real time from current data? While I doubt that the long list has shortened automatically the log files from the tasks pages creation job can be always be found here: http://blends.debian.org/_logs/debian-edu.log (sorry for missing the link in the original bug report). Since the GSoC work last year the Blends metadata are also importet into UDD. I think the log is only available on a host that imports into UDD. I created a copy of a freshly recreated (the import only verifies changed tasks files and I forced a full reimport) log here: http://blends.debian.net/packages-metadata/debian-edu_uud_import_log/20141022_blends_metadata_gatherer-debian-edu.log Probably this is the most valuable source of information to detect problems in the specified names of packages because it tries even harder to give hints for instance also inspects the Ubuntu package pool where some older versions might be kept and thus you know what might be outdated. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141022073931.gd7...@an3as.eu
Re: Bug#726492: debian-edu: Task files are specifying a lot of not existing / renamed packages
Hi Holger, On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:28:38AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: and thus distracts / blurries the view. For example: 2014-10-22 07:09:21,766 - INFO - (190): Blend debian-edu task common: Package ion2 is provided in Ubuntu ion2 is dead since years (6 or 7 or so... years!), so I have no clue why UDD says its still in Ubuntu (it's also still in Debian etch or lenny), but if I see this, I will not track those 200 other entries telling me it's in Ubuntu. Instead it should plainly say: no information about ion2 available in the archive. - or whatever. Your first link is *much* better in this regard. Please forgive me that I was bothering you with some debug info of the Blends importer which is not intended to be inspected by users (and thus not online). I was considering to do you a favour to provide additional information which is IMHO helpful to spot things like this: debian-edu(master) $ gbp-pull debian-edu(master) $ head -n1 debian/changelog debian-edu (1.809) UNRELEASED; urgency=high debian-edu(master) $ grep ion2 tasks/* tasks/common: fvwm1, fvwm95, habak, hanterm-xf, icewm, ion2, ion3, jwm, \ So while this import list is indeed noisy and this is partly Debian Edus fault - because as I said, by design we include packages not (yet) available anymore in our tasks. and then by design we also forget to clean those lists... - but it's also noisy because it adds information from an unrelated source (ubuntu) Yes, Ubuntu is in fact unrelated. I was expecting you to do some `grep -v irrelevant stuff` I personally like to browse the whole list since it might give you some clue about renamed packages which are featuring the old name at these other sources and you are able to remember - hey, this package is renamed now in our relevant source and then overlays this information over other information it has about Debian, so that this other info gets hidden. And *this* needs to be fixed in the UDD importer, and not in the Edu tasks. Holger, it would be really great if you would dig into the tasks files before you claim that they are OK. You just told me how outdated ion2 is and you keep on claiming that the tasks are fine? Again: The UDD importer is not primarily intended for Blends developers but it really helps to detect problems. I'd rather say that the tasks job logfile is broken since it is missing ion2 (and fvwm1, fvwm95, etc.). As always patches are welcome. Hope this helps Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141022095815.ge7...@an3as.eu
Re: Bug#726492: debian-edu: Task files are specifying a lot of not existing / renamed packages
Hi, On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 03:01:28AM +0300, Bob Bib wrote: 2014-09-18, Andreas Tille: Would you volunteer to go further than this start and review all tasts which is deperately needed? Too much cleanup work needed, not for me, sorry... However, I tried to revise the 'desktop-lxde' task (see below). I'd vote to grant you commit permissions in this case to maintain the files directly rather than patches in BTS. Frankly saying, I don't have an intention to maintain this package, sorry again. Maybe some automated tool should be developed, to query the Debian PTS for package availability?.. This tool exists but it is not sufficient to wild guess what additional packages are replacing the ones that vanished. Petter Reinholdtsen: Bug #726492 reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository ... + * Drop some obsolete (nonexisting/renamed) packages from tasks/desktop-other. +Patch from Bob Bib (Closes: #726492). Unfortunately, not yet: my patch is only a small part of of a huge cleanup needed here... I'd strongly recommend to spend 3-4 hours on this task. The Blends logfiles I mentioned in the bug report are sufficient help to do it properly. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140920225033.gb13...@an3as.eu
Re: Bug#726492: debian-edu: Task files are specifying a lot of not existing / renamed packages
Hi Bob, thanks for your input which is definitely helpful. Would you volunteer to go further than this start and review all tasts which is deperately needed? I'd vote to grant you commit permissions in this case to maintain the files directly rather than patches in BTS. Kind regards Andreas. On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 02:01:19AM +0300, Bob Bib wrote: Version: 1.724 Was curious what keeps depending on old wine-doc package... Here a small patch to start with. Best wishes, Bob - --- a/tasks/desktop-other +++ b/tasks/desktop-other @@ -411,7 +411,7 @@ Responsible: ? NeedConfig: ? -Suggests:gnuplot, geg +Suggests:gnuplot Why: Graph plotting programs. gnuplot was requested by math teacher. Responsible: ? NeedConfig: no @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ Responsible: ? NeedConfig: no -Depends: inkscape | sodipodi +Depends: inkscape Recommends: gimp, gimp-data-extras, gimp-ufraw Suggests:kolourpaint, kpaint, netpbm, gv, dia Ignore: gimp-help-cs, gimp-help-de, gimp-help-en, gimp-help-fr, \ @@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ Responsible: Petter Reinholdtsen NeedConfig: No -Suggests:wine, wine-doc, libwine-alsa, libwine-oss +Suggests:wine Why: Run MS Windows applications. Responsible: ? NeedConfig: ? @@ -594,7 +594,7 @@ Responsible: Petter Reinholdtsen NeedConfig: no -Ignore: ted, mgp +Ignore: mgp Why: Presentasjonsverktøy Responsible: ? NeedConfig: no -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1410994702.434153696.uhkkp...@frv40.fwdcdn.com -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140918151917.gl10...@an3as.eu
Re: Bug#726492: debian-edu: Task files are specifying a lot of not existing / renamed packages
Hi, On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:55:20PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: On Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013, Andreas Tille wrote: Yes, there is a way. Inspecting the log I've posted. Could you please have a real look at the list? Could you provide examples from that list, please? You already parsed it it seems. task common: Package gcc-4.0-base not found task common: Package expect-tcl8.3 is provided in Ubuntu task common: Package tk8.3 is provided in Ubuntu task common: Package gobjc-4.2 is provided in Ubuntu task common: Package gobjc++-4.2 is provided in Ubuntu task common: Package gfortran-4.2 is provided in Ubuntu task common: Package sun-java5-bin is provided in Ubuntu task common: Package sun-java5-jre is provided in Ubuntu task common: Package sun-java5-plugin is provided in Ubuntu task main-server: Package php4-cli not found task main-server: Package php4 not found task desktop-other: Package gij-4.1 is provided in Ubuntu task desktop-other: Package ibm-jdk1.1-installer not found task desktop-other: Package jdk1.1 not found task desktop-other: Package kaffe is provided in Ubuntu ... Here are some tricky ones you most probably want to replace with valid packages: task lang-no-desktop: Package openoffice.org-help-nb not found task lang-no-desktop: Package openoffice.org-help-nn not found task lang-no-desktop: Package icedove-l10n-nb not found task lang-no-desktop: Package icedove-l10n-nn not found task desktop-other: Package openoffice.org-help-en not found task desktop-other: Package openoffice.org-l10n-common is provided in Ubuntu task desktop-other: Package openoffice.org-l10n-en-us not found task desktop-other: Package openoffice.org-l10n-fr is mentioned more than once. There is no point in adding an extra entry with strength 'ignore'. task desktop-other: The warning about duplicated package openoffice.org-l10n-fr should have just happended'. task desktop-other: Package openoffice.org-l10n-hi not found task desktop-other: Package openoffice.org-l10n-lo is provided in Ubuntu task desktop-other: Package openoffice.org-l10n-sr-cs not found task desktop-other: Package iceweasel-l10n-cy-gb not found task desktop-other: Package iceweasel-l10n-et-ee not found task desktop-other: Package iceweasel-l10n-roa-es-val not found task desktop-other: Package iceweasel-l10n-uk-ua not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-af not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-az not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-bn not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-br not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-cy not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-mn not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-ms not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-rw not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-se is provided in Ubuntu task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-srlatin not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-ss not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-ta not found task desktop-other: Package kde-l10n-uz not found ... Moreover: Future packages should get some additional information inside the tasks file - you might really want to reread the docs[2]. Frankly: if debian-blends only gives me work more work regularily, Ups, please prove your point: In how far does the Blends framework gives you more work? I would say it just opens your eyes for work you missed to do. why should I use it at all? As I see it we want to maintain a few metapackages with it, keeping up with some meta framework just to achieve this, seems a bit cumbersome... Please be more verbose how you want to maintain a few metapackages just without checking whether * they are valid * they contain things that should not be in The framework was initially invented by Petter for Debian Edu exclusively and I took the freedom to enhance it for everybody. Your question why you should use what you invented before becomes a bit unexpected, really. And you should know that I spended a lot of time on creating tools that go way beyond just metapackages you could perfectly use for advertising of Debian Edu and doing QA work. Its not my fault if you reduce the framework only onto a few metapackages. (eg also that the debian-edu package requires a special buld procedure is not nice for new Debian Edu developers.) I admit this is an issue and I'm working with my GSoC student to try to fix this. However, the exact wording for your sentence above would be ... the debian-edu *source* package requires ... I really wonder in how far a make dist is so complex to create a source package. In the GSoC project we even injected automatic debian/changelog creation what package was added / removed and added support for different architectures (I'm keen on learning how you want to cope with this with your a few metapackages editing approach). Unfortunately the source package creation process is *now* a bit more advanced than a simple make dist and thus we
Re: Bug#726492: debian-edu: Task files are specifying a lot of not existing / renamed packages
Hi Holger, On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 02:24:55PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: On Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013, Andreas Tille wrote: Debian Edu tasks files are in a *very* weak state. why do you call it weak? Because we are less likely to notice new failures? There will be no failures actually because the Blends framework is safe in terms of ignoring unknown packages. This advantage has in turn the drawback that you are not noticing renamed packages or packages that are providing alternatives for some package that was removed from Debian. And your tasks files just do contain such packages that are affected which I'd call weak and the very was used because it are several packages. You should fix all the packages mentioned in your tasks file because in the worst case you will lack those packages who are renamed or have better alternatives in your resulting metapackages. I seem to recall there was a practice of just adding random prospective package(names), hoping they would be packaged some day. (I was never happy with this approach.) But in debian-edu it is the other way around. In most cases there is no hope that the old packages will come back or reappear in old versions etc. If this approach is not used anymore (or my memory is wrong in the first place), I'm all for clean up! The approach remains valid - but this is *not* the problem in your tasks files at all. You did not updated your tasks files with not *yet* available packages - you are just keeping cruft. Hope this explains better Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131016125302.ge32...@an3as.eu
Re: Bug#726492: debian-edu: Task files are specifying a lot of not existing / renamed packages
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:51:06PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi Andreas, (are you still subscribed to the edu list?) Sure I am! And according to the liststats[1] I'm struggling hard to remain the top 6th poster but I'll probably loose this position soon to Mike. ;-) On Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013, Andreas Tille wrote: The approach remains valid - but this is *not* the problem in your tasks files at all. You did not updated your tasks files with not *yet* available packages - you are just keeping cruft. Thats my point: if we collect not yet packaged packages there, there is no way to distinguish those from cruft. Yes, there is a way. Inspecting the log I've posted. Could you please have a real look at the list? I'm really wondering how you could come up with the thesis that old stuff from future stuff is hard to distinguish after having at least a slightest look. Moreover: Future packages should get some additional information inside the tasks file - you might really want to reread the docs[2]. So cleaning up is simple: Remove everything that is not found that has no additional information provided. That should be very simple. But as I repeatedly said: Watch for alternatives / renamed packages. And a wiki seems better I think we had left behind the Wiki discussion about ten years ago. A Wiki for the intended purpose is *way* worse. And please do not use the argument that a Wiki is always up to date. A Wiki is only up to date if enough people care. Please trust me: All those Wiki pages createt for Blends related package list either were never finished or are outdated now. The major advantage is that you can *check* the metadate inside a task file (see this bug report) but you can not with a Wiki. What lets you assume that given you have not maintained the list of packages inside the tasks file on what you are relying technically anyway a Wiki might be maintained more reliable. And even if you might be right which I doubt heavily: Why should anybody spent time in migrating the (assumed) maintained Wiki content into the tasks file. I really hope I misunderstood you. for keeping such a list anyway, so I'm all for your cleanup plan. I'm doing this cleanup regularly for Debian Med and Debian Science and it takes some time but if you try to let the amount of work not to pile up that much as it is now that's no problem at all. BTW, I'm to lazy to search the list, but I have given hints on this problem several times in the past (also several times with bad timing for various freezes). One minor problem though: I'd prefer to do all jessie related work in git now, and keep svn exclusivly for wheezy+squeeze support (unless where we already use git), thus migrating the debian-edu git package is somewhat a blocker for fixing this bug. Else I say: please go ahead, remove all the cruft! :-) You can keep Blends sources in SVN or Git at your preference. I could provide a script to do the migration (or for some kind of $DRINK when we might meet next time I'd volunteer to do this ;-)). Kind regards Andreas. [1] http://blends.debian.net/liststats/authorstat_debian-edu.png [2] http://blends.alioth.debian.org/blends/ch-sentinel.en.html#s-packageslist -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131016143638.gj32...@an3as.eu
