Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 02:56:40PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> More generally, it seems that we have a big problem.
>
> Many tools relied on the fact that the Sources file only contained one
> entry per package. This was changed recently, without any impact study,
> and instantly broke many tools and scripts.
> I'm not sure where we should got from here: should we ask ftpmasters to
> consider reverting that change in some way? Or instead, try to find all the
> tools that relied on the old format?
I think we should understand how many things have been broken by this:
if they're many we can ask for the revert and start porting the code, if
we're a few just fix them. The PTS, for once, can easily be fixed: it
would be enough to remember the most recent version read while importing
Sources (but unfortunately I didn't have time to do that this week-end).
How about mailing -devel and ask people to report breakages? (better if
with pointers to the already reported bugs)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#462934: Fix for this bug
Hi! Could you please consider at least a partial fix, with no message as to why the redirection happened? I really could do well without the message about redirection… Thanks in advance. Kumar -- If you shed tears when you miss the sun, you also miss the stars. - Rabindranath Tagore (Stray Birds, 1916) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > I think we should understand how many things have been broken by this: > if they're many we can ask for the revert and start porting the code, if > we're a few just fix them. The PTS, for once, can easily be fixed: it > would be enough to remember the most recent version read while importing > Sources (but unfortunately I didn't have time to do that this week-end). > > How about mailing -devel and ask people to report breakages? (better if > with pointers to the already reported bugs) > * DEHS: fixed to make it work with current Sources, but it uses the first version it finds, which happens to be the oldest * security tracker: fixed * lintian.d.o: not even reported, just noticed it * PTS: dunno * UDD: dunno * ...? There might be as well many more. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#560697: qa.debian.org: old watch file used for DEHS for pam-pgsql
Jan Dittberner wrote: > Package: qa.debian.org > Severity: normal > > my DDPO shows an outdated upstream version in the unstable Watch column. > Obviously DEHS does not use the current watch file from the package in > unstable but an old version (maybe the one from the version in Lenny). > It uses the watch file and version information from the first entry it finds of a package in Sources. So yes, your package is not yet at the same version in all the architectures. I will eventually make it use the latest version no matter in what place in the Sources file is, but this requires more work than what I am willing to commit to DEHS right now. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)
On 13/12/09 at 16:39 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > I think we should understand how many things have been broken by this: > > if they're many we can ask for the revert and start porting the code, if > > we're a few just fix them. The PTS, for once, can easily be fixed: it > > would be enough to remember the most recent version read while importing > > Sources (but unfortunately I didn't have time to do that this week-end). > > > > How about mailing -devel and ask people to report breakages? (better if > > with pointers to the already reported bugs) > > * DEHS: fixed to make it work with current Sources, but it uses the first > version it finds, which happens to be the oldest That doesn't really count as "fixed" :-) > * security tracker: fixed > * lintian.d.o: not even reported, just noticed it > * PTS: dunno * PTS: affected, not fixed yet * DDPO: affected, not fixed yet AFAIK * britney: fixed * piuparts.d.o: dunno * UDD: well, "it's not a bug, it's a feature". added a view to provide the old information. Some CGIs or views are probably still broken. * my archive rebuild scripts were affected (fixed) * Ubuntu syncs might be affected as well Now, packages: * debmirror? * APT proxies? * Stuff in devscripts? (dd-list works fine) -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 13/12/09 at 16:39 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: >> * DEHS: fixed to make it work with current Sources, but it uses the first >> version it finds, which happens to be the oldest > > That doesn't really count as "fixed" :-) It's better than just failing to update the database because the (package,release) unique constraint is not met :). > >> * security tracker: fixed >> * lintian.d.o: not even reported, just noticed it >> * PTS: dunno > > * PTS: affected, not fixed yet > * DDPO: affected, not fixed yet AFAIK > * britney: fixed Right, I forgot about britney migrating different package versions :) > * piuparts.d.o: dunno > * UDD: well, "it's not a bug, it's a feature". added a view to provide > the old information. Some CGIs or views are probably still broken. Why not do it the other way around? that way less things will break. > * my archive rebuild scripts were affected (fixed) Mines will happily accept any number of versions, but it's useless to test old versions. > * Ubuntu syncs might be affected as well > Yay, second breakage (merge-o-matic was broken with format 3.0 IIRC) > Now, packages: > * debmirror? I only use it for binary packages, and seems to be working fine (in spite of the multiple arch:all packages). > * APT proxies? > * Stuff in devscripts? (dd-list works fine) Have you checked if it considers the latest version? Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Bug#560352: PTS page scew-up? (pcsc-omnikey)
On 13/12/09 at 17:00 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 13/12/09 at 16:39 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > >> * DEHS: fixed to make it work with current Sources, but it uses the first > >> version it finds, which happens to be the oldest > > > > That doesn't really count as "fixed" :-) > > It's better than just failing to update the database because the > (package,release) unique constraint is not met :). > > > > >> * security tracker: fixed > >> * lintian.d.o: not even reported, just noticed it > >> * PTS: dunno > > > > * PTS: affected, not fixed yet > > * DDPO: affected, not fixed yet AFAIK > > * britney: fixed > > Right, I forgot about britney migrating different package versions :) > > > * piuparts.d.o: dunno > > * UDD: well, "it's not a bug, it's a feature". added a view to provide > > the old information. Some CGIs or views are probably still broken. > > Why not do it the other way around? that way less things will break. Sadly, I think that we will have to live with this change. So it's better if UDD exports that "inconsistancy" by default, and provides a way to hide it. > > * my archive rebuild scripts were affected (fixed) > > Mines will happily accept any number of versions, but it's useless to test > old versions. Well, mine too, but reporting bugs about older versions was not a good idea. > > Now, packages: > > * debmirror? > > I only use it for binary packages, and seems to be working fine (in spite of > the multiple arch:all packages). Gah, there are multiple arch:all packages as well? That increases quite a lot the potential for failures. > > * APT proxies? > > * Stuff in devscripts? (dd-list works fine) > > Have you checked if it considers the latest version? No. It uses the last one listed using apt-cache showsrc (but that's broken anyway if you have unstable+testing in your sources.list). I'm preparing a mail to -de...@. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Please investigate removal of adolc
Hi, please investigate removal of adolc, which has been RC-buggy since August 2008 (#496490), without any single reply from the maintainer, even though Neil Williams tried to give him a hand. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please investigate removal of adolc
Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Hi, > > please investigate removal of adolc, which has been RC-buggy since > August 2008 (#496490), without any single reply from the maintainer, > even though Neil Williams tried to give him a hand. > > Mraw, > KiBi. PROP_O/PROP_RM filed. Thanks! Barry deFreese Debian QA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
