Re: simpleparse
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > Hi ! > > python-simpleparse has two annoying bugs: > http://bugs.debian.org/426429 > http://bugs.debian.org/357537 > > Both of them is solved by a new upstream version. The last upload by the > maintainer is from 2005?[1]. This is the only package of this > maintainer?[2]. > > I and another contributor have provided patchs to package the new > upstream and solve those bugs. We don't get any answer from Seo which > seems to be inactive. > > Therefore, I'd like to request to orphan this package. I would then > adopt it and maintain it inside Debian Python Modules Team. > > [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/simpleparse.html > [2] http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] You are right. I am sorry. Consider python-simpleparse hereby orphaned. Note: as far as I know, those bugs are "solved" by the new upstream version, in the sense that new upstream version bundles its own forked copy of mxTextTools. This is unfortunate, but for now it would be rational to assume that SimpleParse's fork of mxTextTools will never be merged. Seo Sanghyeon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#354307: packages.qa.debian.org/m/mydsn.html has weird sorted news
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:05:01PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Moreover, and that's the main point of this report, it seems that the
> last time the clash happened was January 2006, no other clashes in 2007
> nor 2008. Is it possible that the issue has been solved elsewhere and
> the clash no longer happens?
And indeed this diff explains the reason:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/srv/debian/pts/www/bin$ svn diff -r1281:1282
common.py|grep -C 2 raise
+targetfile = "%s/%s.txt" % (dir, info['timestamp'])
+if os.path.isfile(targetfile):
+raise("Aiee, already such message %s" % targetfile)
+f = open(targetfile, "w")
f.write(msg.as_string())
it is dated February 2006. So, starting from there on, duplicate news
are refused on the basis of its timestamp alone.
I will then get rid of duplicates and see what to do with the other
strange files ...
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#462627: PTS: don't show empty uploaders field
Package: qa.debian.org Severity: wishlist Please don't show the Uploaders field when it is empty. Examples: http://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers.html http://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nsis.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#462627: PTS: don't show empty uploaders field
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 11:06 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 06:46:32PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > > Please don't show the Uploaders field when it is empty. > > I think in the beginning this was intentional (see the markup for the > None string to convince yourself of this :-) ). Ahh, hmm. I think that is the wrong way to remind people to get uploaders. A TODO item would be a better way IMO. > However now it is probably pointless since the habit of Uploaders is > well known. So I'm in favour of fixing this bug of yours. I don't think there are enough people in or interested in Debian to have a co-maintainer for every package in Debian. There aren't even enough for every package to have a maintainer, in Debian and upstream. > Comments? I think the Uploaders should be removed from all packages where it is empty and the TODO item remain for "important" packages. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: simpleparse
OoO En cette fin de nuit blanche du samedi 26 janvier 2008, vers 05:23, Seo Sanghyeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait: >> Therefore, I'd like to request to orphan this package. I would then >> adopt it and maintain it inside Debian Python Modules Team. >> > You are right. I am sorry. > Consider python-simpleparse hereby orphaned. > Note: as far as I know, those bugs are "solved" by the new upstream version, > in the sense that new upstream version bundles its own forked copy of > mxTextTools. This is unfortunate, but for now it would be rational to > assume that SimpleParse's fork of mxTextTools will never be merged. Hi Seo ! Thanks for your quick reply. I have packaged the new upstream into DPMT SVN. You can find the changelog here: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/python-modules/packages/simpleparse/trunk/debian/changelog?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 I have asked for review by one of DPMT member. -- /* * Should be panic but... (Why are BSD people panic obsessed ??) */ 2.0.38 /usr/src/linux/net/ipv4/ip_fw.c -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#462627: PTS: don't show empty uploaders field
user [EMAIL PROTECTED] usertag 462627 + pts thanks On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 06:46:32PM +0900, Paul Wise wrote: > Please don't show the Uploaders field when it is empty. I think in the beginning this was intentional (see the markup for the None string to convince yourself of this :-) ). However now it is probably pointless since the habit of Uploaders is well known. So I'm in favour of fixing this bug of yours. Or, at least, we should choose among: 1) decide that not having at least Uploader is bad, and mention this in the TODO/Problem section (but IIRC we already have something such for important packages, for some definition of "important") 2) deciding that it is not a PTS concern and then hide the field following the PTS mantra that only available information are shown, hence hiding empty Uploader fields Comments? -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from DEHS
Hello, On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 21:07 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > It's been some time since DEHS[1] had some 'big' changes (probably since its > creation). Here's a list of changes that have been done lately: There's now a wiki page about DEHS. http://wiki.debian.org/Dehs Feel free to improve it (or rename it, may be something like http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/Dehs ?) I hope this will add more visibility to DEHS. Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#354307: packages.qa.debian.org/m/mydsn.html has weird sorted news
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:05:01PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Moreover, and that's the main point of this report, it seems that the
> > last time the clash happened was January 2006, no other clashes in 2007
> > nor 2008. Is it possible that the issue has been solved elsewhere and
> > the clash no longer happens?
>
> And indeed this diff explains the reason:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/srv/debian/pts/www/bin$ svn diff -r1281:1282
> common.py|grep -C 2 raise
> +targetfile = "%s/%s.txt" % (dir, info['timestamp'])
> +if os.path.isfile(targetfile):
> +raise("Aiee, already such message %s" % targetfile)
> +f = open(targetfile, "w")
>f.write(msg.as_string())
>
> it is dated February 2006. So, starting from there on, duplicate news
> are refused on the basis of its timestamp alone.
>
> I will then get rid of duplicates and see what to do with the other
> strange files ...
Note that this behaviour should be fixed. It happens that dak send several
Accepted mails during the same second for example when the package gets
out of NEW and when several upload happened while the package was sitting
in NEW.
I remember neuro complaining about getting bounces on those cases. Jeroen
never got around to fix that.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#354307: packages.qa.debian.org/m/mydsn.html has weird sorted news
On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:17:19PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Note that this behaviour should be fixed. It happens that dak send several
> Accepted mails during the same second for example when the package gets
> out of NEW and when several upload happened while the package was sitting
> in NEW.
>
> I remember neuro complaining about getting bounces on those cases. Jeroen
> never got around to fix that.
Ok, here is a proposed (yet untested) fix:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/srv/debian/pts/www/bin$ svn diff common.py
Index: common.py
===
--- common.py (revision 1821)
+++ common.py (working copy)
@@ -18,8 +18,13 @@
info = extract_info(msg)
targetfile = "%s/%s.txt" % (dir, info['timestamp'])
-if os.path.isfile(targetfile):
-raise("Aiee, already such message %s" % targetfile)
+nonce = 0
+while os.path.isfile(targetfile):
+nonce += 1
+if nonce > 128: # eventually give up
+raise("can't find a free slot to save message, last stried was
%s"\
+% targetfile)
+targetfile = "%s/%s.%d.txt" % (dir, info['timestamp'], nonce)
f = open(targetfile, "w")
f.write(msg.as_string())
f.close()
It assumes however that all mails received in the very same second are
to be kept, is it a correct assumption?
Also, it sort strangely news received in the very same second, here is
an example of what I mean (ipython session):
In [18]: a=['1236.txt', '1235.txt', '1234.txt', '1235.1.txt', '1235.2.txt']
In [19]: a.sort()
In [20]: a.reverse()
In [21]: a
Out[21]: ['1236.txt', '1235.txt', '1235.2.txt', '1235.1.txt', '1234.txt']
This can be fixed in update_news.py using an ad-hoc sorting function,
but I don't think it's worth, after all those mail have all been
received in the very same second, whatever order would do IMO.
Let me know if you want me to commit this fix or not ...
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what?
[EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: QA Uploads
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:57:12PM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: > I think I finally got it right. At least it display OK for me and > lintian is happy now. I've put a new one on mentors. Uploaded Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: QA Uploads
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:37:17PM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: > New one one mentors. Uploaded Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: QA Uploads
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:01:22PM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote:
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libapache2-mod-xmlrpc2/libapache2-mod-xmlrpc2_2.2.1-3.dsc
> Fairly intrusive but makes it build and fixes 2 important bugs.
debdiff between the old and new binary:
File lists identical (after any substitutions)
Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
Depends: {+apache2.2-common,+} libc6 (>= [-2.3.6-6), libdb4.3 (>= 4.3.28-1),
libexpat1 (>= 1.95.8), libruby1.8 (>= 1.8.4), libxmlrpc-c3, apache2-common (>=
2.0.50)-] {+2.7-1), libuuid1, libxmlrpc-c3+}
Installed-Size: [-72-] {+124+}
Maintainer: [-Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-] {+Debian QA Group <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>+}
Version: [-2.2.1-2-] {+2.2.1-3+}
So the dependencies on libdb4.3, libexpat1, libruby1.8 vanished? Is that
correct?
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: QA Uploads
On 26/01/2008, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:01:22PM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote:
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libapache2-mod-xmlrpc2/libapache2-mod-xmlrpc2_2.2.1-3.dsc
> > Fairly intrusive but makes it build and fixes 2 important bugs.
>
> debdiff between the old and new binary:
> File lists identical (after any substitutions)
>
> Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
>
> Depends: {+apache2.2-common,+} libc6 (>= [-2.3.6-6), libdb4.3 (>= 4.3.28-1),
> libexpat1 (>= 1.95.8), libruby1.8 (>= 1.8.4), libxmlrpc-c3, apache2-common
> (>= 2.0.50)-] {+2.7-1), libuuid1, libxmlrpc-c3+}
> Installed-Size: [-72-] {+124+}
> Maintainer: [-Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-] {+Debian QA Group <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]>+}
> Version: [-2.2.1-2-] {+2.2.1-3+}
>
> So the dependencies on libdb4.3, libexpat1, libruby1.8 vanished? Is that
> correct?
At least from a .so point of view:
Symbol diff:
./usr/lib/apache2/modules/mod_xmlrpc.so:
@@ -1,13 +1,10 @@
NEEDED libxmlrpc.so.3
+ NEEDED libxmlrpc_util.so.3
NEEDED libxmlrpc_xmlparse.so.3
NEEDED libxmlrpc_xmltok.so.3
+ NEEDED libuuid.so.1
NEEDED librt.so.1
- NEEDED libm.so.6
NEEDED libcrypt.so.1
- NEEDED libnsl.so.1
NEEDED libpthread.so.0
NEEDED libdl.so.2
- NEEDED libdb-4.3.so
- NEEDED libexpat.so.1
NEEDED libc.so.6
- NEEDED libruby1.8.so.1.8
Since the previous (-2) revision can't be rebuilt (FTBFS), I only
applied the CMakeLists.txt diff, and both (the rebuilt one and the
“Barry one”) binaries are the same. Could it be that these NEEDED
dependencies previously came from extra linking and/or from extra Libs
in pkgconfig files (or similar), now moved to Libs.private?
Note that xmlrpc-c is in a strange shape (build states), I'm contacting
seanius through private mail about that.
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois
pgpBUZFBDTfcJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bug#457152: marked as done (qa.debian.org: Accurately represent Bugs/Patches available in the Todo section of PTS page)
Your message dated Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:05:23 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line qa.debian.org: Accurately represent Bugs/Patches available in the Todo has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: qa.debian.org Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, The Todo section of the PTS page lists the number of patches, but this number is misleading (see the reportbug PTS page) because it counts the patches on merged bugs multiple times. One of the following two things may be a good idea: 1. Don't count the patches on merged bugs multiple times 2. Reword "The Bug Tracking System contains NN patches, you should include them" to "The Bug Tracking System contains patches to fix NN bugs, you should include them." (or something on those lines). Giridhar - -- Y Giridhar Appaji Nag | http://www.appaji.net/ - -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (800, 'unstable'), (700, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-3-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_IN, LC_CTYPE=en_IN (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHahSd4eu+pR04mIcRAkreAKDZJCwXjtf61mgswJITqB0XjhEFfgCaAhS6 jCaWqYdaq8Dn/K9Dps1BiLs= =Yf9O -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:37:09 +0530, Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote: > 2. Reword "The Bug Tracking System contains NN patches, you should > include them" to "The Bug Tracking System contains patches to fix NN > bugs, you should include them." (or something on those lines). This bug as been fixed implementing a rewording similar to your above. See the vim pts page for an example of the new wording, the other pages will be regenerated at the following pulse. Thanks for your report, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature --- End Message ---
Bug#457759: PTS: bug summary counts bugs that are assigned to two or more packages more than once
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:13:56 +0100, "Frank S. Thomas" wrote: > If one bug is assigned to two or more binary packages of the same > source package, the PTS' "Bugs count" summary counts this bug more > than once. This summary should only count bugs in the source package. > The DDPO does this right, compare for example: The fix for this is trickier than what it might seem. Apparently, the PTS has only bug stats about binary packages. Here is the relevant snippet from www/bin/update_incoming.sh: # Download bugs summary nice_wget http://merkel.debian.org/~hertzog/pts/bugs.txt bugs.txt and the downloaded file is binary package oriented (for example, "boinc" itself does not appear). Raphael, how is that file generated? Can we add the generation of an extra incoming source containing source oriented bug stats? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#356776: marked as done (PTS: lingering new upstream version todo)
Your message dated Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:34:26 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line PTS: lingering new upstream version todo has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: qa.debian.org Severity: minor The package tracking page at: http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gnubg.html still says that a new upstream version was found, despite the fact that I uploaded a Debian package with that version some time back and it's migrated into testing. The watch columns in the developer's overview are happy, so I assume that this item came from some other source that didn't clear the same way. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:00 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > The package tracking page at: > http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gnubg.html > still says that a new upstream version was found, despite the fact that > I uploaded a Debian package with that version some time back and it's > migrated into testing. The watch columns in the developer's overview > are happy, so I assume that this item came from some other source that > didn't clear the same way. Indeed, the watch information which were available on the PTS pages where out of date. We got rid of them. This bug is closed as a consequence. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature --- End Message ---
Bug#367098: marked as done (PTS: bug summary should not count merged bugs twice)
Your message dated Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:40:10 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line invalid, would induce a different meaning of "summary" than bts has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: qa.debian.org Severity: minor Hello all, The PTS shows a summary of the bug numbers for a package, however if a package has two bugs which are merged, it displays 2. I'd expect 1 to be a better summary of the state of affairs. regards, Thijs --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- > The PTS shows a summary of the bug numbers for a package, however if a > package has two bugs which are merged, it displays 2. I'd expect 1 to be > a better summary of the state of affairs. Not a bug. The BTS bug log pages count in summary lines merged bug twice, we should the PTS behave differently? Closing the bug on the basis of this observation. If you really want to see this changed, you really should convince first the bugs.d.o maintainer to change the meaning of bug count there ... Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature --- End Message ---
Bug#433933: marked as done (should not complain about ITPs of packages which are only in experimental)
Your message dated Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:46:36 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line should not complain about ITPs of packages which are only in experimental has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: qa.debian.org Severity: minor PTS says the following about ekg2 (which is still only in experimental ATM): The WNPP database contains an ITP (Intent To Package) entry for this package. This is probably an error, as it has already been packaged. Please see bug number #267277 for more information. I think there was a consensus, that one should not close an ITP bug until the package makes it at least into unstable. So the above is not necessarily a problem in this case. -- System Information: Debian Release: 4.0 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686-mactel Locale: LANG=pl_PL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:10:05 +0100, Marcin Owsiany wrote: > I think there was a consensus, that one should not close an ITP bug > until the package makes it at least into unstable. Comments to this bug report show that there is no such consensus (FWIW, I agree for one more, to the two comments reported on this). Concluding from it that this is not a bug, I'm closing this bug report. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature --- End Message ---
Bug#457759: PTS: bug summary counts bugs that are assigned to two or more packages more than once
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:13:56 +0100, "Frank S. Thomas" wrote: > > If one bug is assigned to two or more binary packages of the same > > source package, the PTS' "Bugs count" summary counts this bug more > > than once. This summary should only count bugs in the source package. > > The DDPO does this right, compare for example: > > The fix for this is trickier than what it might seem. > Apparently, the PTS has only bug stats about binary packages. Here is > the relevant snippet from www/bin/update_incoming.sh: > > # Download bugs summary > nice_wget http://merkel.debian.org/~hertzog/pts/bugs.txt bugs.txt > > and the downloaded file is binary package oriented (for example, "boinc" > itself does not appear). > > Raphael, how is that file generated? Can we add the generation of an > extra incoming source containing source oriented bug stats? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ crontab -l # List of bugs for PTS 20 15,7,23 * * *($HOME/bin/process-index.pl /org/bugs.debian.org/spool/index.db >$HOME/public_html/pts/bugs.txt) */10 * * * * (cp -fp /org/bugs.debian.org/etc/indices/sources $HOME/public_html/pts/sources) Feel free to improve whatever you want in that script. :) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#354307: packages.qa.debian.org/m/mydsn.html has weird sorted news
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 02:17:19PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Note that this behaviour should be fixed. It happens that dak send several
> > Accepted mails during the same second for example when the package gets
> > out of NEW and when several upload happened while the package was sitting
> > in NEW.
> >
> > I remember neuro complaining about getting bounces on those cases. Jeroen
> > never got around to fix that.
>
> Ok, here is a proposed (yet untested) fix:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/srv/debian/pts/www/bin$ svn diff common.py
> Index: common.py
> ===
> --- common.py (revision 1821)
> +++ common.py (working copy)
> @@ -18,8 +18,13 @@
>info = extract_info(msg)
>
>targetfile = "%s/%s.txt" % (dir, info['timestamp'])
targetfile = "%s/%s.0.txt" % (dir, info['timestamp'])
At least it'll fix the sorting order...
> -if os.path.isfile(targetfile):
> -raise("Aiee, already such message %s" % targetfile)
> +nonce = 0
> +while os.path.isfile(targetfile):
> +nonce += 1
> +if nonce > 128: # eventually give up
> +raise("can't find a free slot to save message, last stried was
> %s"\
s/stried/tried/
> +% targetfile)
> +targetfile = "%s/%s.%d.txt" % (dir, info['timestamp'], nonce)
>f = open(targetfile, "w")
>f.write(msg.as_string())
>f.close()
>
> It assumes however that all mails received in the very same second are
> to be kept, is it a correct assumption?
I think so.
> Also, it sort strangely news received in the very same second, here is
> an example of what I mean (ipython session):
>
> In [18]: a=['1236.txt', '1235.txt', '1234.txt', '1235.1.txt', '1235.2.txt']
> In [19]: a.sort()
> In [20]: a.reverse()
> In [21]: a
> Out[21]: ['1236.txt', '1235.txt', '1235.2.txt', '1235.1.txt', '1234.txt']
>
> This can be fixed in update_news.py using an ad-hoc sorting function,
> but I don't think it's worth, after all those mail have all been
> received in the very same second, whatever order would do IMO.
You can also simply fix the default filename. :)
> Let me know if you want me to commit this fix or not ...
Go ahead with the little changes above.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
