Re: new KDE stack appears to break baloo-widgets/4:17.08.3-1 autopkgtest in testing
¡Hola Paul! El 2018-05-31 a las 12:56 +0200, Paul Gevers escribió: Do you want me to speed up the migration then? Thanks for asking. No, I don't think it's really needed now, we can wait two more days. Happy hacking, -- "Seek simplicity, and distrust it." -- Whitehead's Rule Saludos /\/\ /\ >< `/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: new KDE stack appears to break baloo-widgets/4:17.08.3-1 autopkgtest in testing
Hi Maximiliano, On 31-05-18 12:07, Maximiliano Curia wrote: > ¡Hola Paul! > > El 2018-05-30 a las 21:29 +0200, Paul Gevers escribió: > My experience sending mails as @debian.org to lists.debian.org is that > mails get a spam score and so they may be considered as spam if any > other rule gives your mail some extra points. That's the reason why I'm > sending the mails as gnuservers.com.ar. I am sending my e-mails to localhost which is forwarding the local port to respighi exactly for similar reasons. I don't have good alternatives as my ISP is using anti-spam measures that make my own e-mails end up in my spam box for lists.debian.org lists. This has been working well for the last two years or so. > Anyway, could you resend us those mails? Attached one, they were all the same, minus packages and versions. I don't think it matters much anymore after our discussion. >> No, I don't, that is why I ask you as the maintainer. But if you have >> reasons for the "we currently don't care" for the baloo-widgets >> autopkgtest, I could have helped you to speed up the migration if the >> gain is worth that regression. > > All right, I had misunderstood your original email. > > Given that the test is also failing in upstream's ci, and no user seems > to have any "new" issue with baloo, I don't see any gain in sending an > rc bug to block the transition. Do you want me to speed up the migration then? Paul --- Begin Message --- Dear maintainers, [This e-mail is automatically sent. V3.2 (20180518)] tl;dr: kcoreaddons/5.46.0-1 appears to break baloo-widgets/4:17.08.3-1 autopkgtest in testing see: https://ci.debian.net/packages/b/baloo-widgets/testing/amd64/ and https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=kcoreaddons As recently announced [1] Debian is now running autopkgtests in testing to check if the migration of a new source package causes regressions. It does this with the binary packages of the new version of the source package from unstable. With a recent upload of kcoreaddons the autopkgtest of baloo-widgets started to fail in testing [2]. This is currently delaying the migration of kcoreaddons version 5.46.0-1 [3]. This e-mail is meant to trigger prompt direct communication between the maintainers of the involved packages as one party has insight in what changed and the other party insight in what is being tested. Please therefore get in touch with each other with your ideas about what the causes of the problem might be, proposed patches, etc. A regression in a reverse dependency can be due to one of the following reasons (of course not complete): * new bug in the candidate package (fix the package) * bug in the test case that only gets triggered due to the update (fix the reverse dependency, but see below) * out-of-date reference date in the test case that captures a former bug in the candidate package (fix the reverse dependency, but see below) * deprecation of functionality that is used in the reverse dependency and/or its test case (discussion needed) * regression due to other packages from unstable that are installed to fulfill (versioned) Depends (contact maintainers of those). Triaging tips are being collected on the Debian Wiki [4]. Unfortunately sometimes a regression is only intermittent. Ideally this should be fixed, but it may be OK to just have the autopkgtest retried (a link is available in the excuses [3]). There are cases where it is required to have multiple packages migrate together to have the test cases pass, e.g. when there was a bug in a regressing test case of a reverse dependency and that got fixed. In that case the test cases need to be triggered with both packages from unstable (reply to this e-mail and/or contact the ci-team [5]) or just wait until the aging time is over (if the fixed reverse dependency migrates before that time, the failed test can be retriggered [3]). Of course no system is perfect. In case a framework issue is suspected, don't hesitate to raise the issue via BTS or to the ci-team [5] (reply to me is also fine for initial cross-check). To avoid stepping on peoples toes, this e-mail does not automatically generate a bug in the BTS, but it is highly recommended to forward this e-mail there (psuedo-header boilerplate below [6,7]) in case it is clear which package should solve this regression. It can be appropriate to file an RC bug against the depended-on package, if the regression amounts to an RC bug in the depending package, and to keep it open while the matter is investigated. That will prevent migration of an RC regression. If the maintainers of the depending package don't have available effort to fix a problem, it is appropriate for the maintainers of the depended-on package to consider an NMU of the depending package. Any such an NMU should take place in accordance with the normal NMU rules. Neither of the above steps should be seen as hostile; they are part of trying to work together to keep Debian in tip-top shape. If you find that yo
Re: new KDE stack appears to break baloo-widgets/4:17.08.3-1 autopkgtest in testing
¡Hola Paul! El 2018-05-30 a las 21:29 +0200, Paul Gevers escribió: Hmm, I can't find the messages on lists.debian.org with their message-id (tried two), so they are probably lost (they were sent as I CC-ed myself and I received the messages). For the record, all sent on 2018-05-20 around 19:56 UTC+02: Message-ID: <1526839020.2732131-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839018.9428892-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839016.5067074-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839019.5896761-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839018.344501-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839017.09134-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839017.724839-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> My experience sending mails as @debian.org to lists.debian.org is that mails get a spam score and so they may be considered as spam if any other rule gives your mail some extra points. That's the reason why I'm sending the mails as gnuservers.com.ar. I see that your mail was delivered to a release.debian.org machine, and maybe that avoids the mentioned scoring, are the mails sent from testavoira.debian.org also delivered to respighi.debian.org (via submission, I'm guessing)? Anyway, could you resend us those mails? No, I don't, that is why I ask you as the maintainer. But if you have reasons for the "we currently don't care" for the baloo-widgets autopkgtest, I could have helped you to speed up the migration if the gain is worth that regression. All right, I had misunderstood your original email. Given that the test is also failing in upstream's ci, and no user seems to have any "new" issue with baloo, I don't see any gain in sending an rc bug to block the transition. Happy hacking, -- "Inside every large problem is a small problem struggling to get out." -- Hoare's Law of Large Problems Saludos /\/\ /\ >< `/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: new KDE stack appears to break baloo-widgets/4:17.08.3-1 autopkgtest in testing
Hi Maximiliano, On 30-05-18 15:22, Maximiliano Curia wrote: > El 2018-05-30 a las 10:35 +0200, Paul Gevers escribió: >> Last week I send you multiple (automatically generated) e-mails about >> KDE packages that appeared to break the autopkgtest of baloo-widgets. I >> am wondering if you investigated the current breakage of the breakage. >> If the regression is only in the autopkgtest and not in the >> baloo-widgets itself (I interpret the non-action as meaning that, as >> baloo-widgets in unstable isn't updated) I'd like to know, because if >> baloo-widgets is broken by the new versions, we need to file an RC bug >> in the next couple of days to prevent the KDE stack from migrating to >> testing. > > The last mail I have from you is dated 2018-05-11 and it's about > kpackage autopkgtest, not about baloo, so I'm not sure if the messages > were lost or wasn't sent with your name on it. Could you please check if > the mail reached this list and send us a link to it? Hmm, I can't find the messages on lists.debian.org with their message-id (tried two), so they are probably lost (they were sent as I CC-ed myself and I received the messages). For the record, all sent on 2018-05-20 around 19:56 UTC+02: Message-ID: <1526839020.2732131-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839018.9428892-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839016.5067074-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839019.5896761-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839018.344501-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839017.09134-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> Message-ID: <1526839017.724839-elb...@testavoira.debian.org> > Other than the autopkgtest failures have you found anything that > justifies an rc bug? So far the autopkgtest failures are only a delay in > the transition, and kde has enough sid users that track most breakages. No, I don't, that is why I ask you as the maintainer. But if you have reasons for the "we currently don't care" for the baloo-widgets autopkgtest, I could have helped you to speed up the migration if the gain is worth that regression. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: new KDE stack appears to break baloo-widgets/4:17.08.3-1 autopkgtest in testing
¡Hola Paul! El 2018-05-30 a las 10:35 +0200, Paul Gevers escribió: Last week I send you multiple (automatically generated) e-mails about KDE packages that appeared to break the autopkgtest of baloo-widgets. I am wondering if you investigated the current breakage of the breakage. If the regression is only in the autopkgtest and not in the baloo-widgets itself (I interpret the non-action as meaning that, as baloo-widgets in unstable isn't updated) I'd like to know, because if baloo-widgets is broken by the new versions, we need to file an RC bug in the next couple of days to prevent the KDE stack from migrating to testing. The last mail I have from you is dated 2018-05-11 and it's about kpackage autopkgtest, not about baloo, so I'm not sure if the messages were lost or wasn't sent with your name on it. Could you please check if the mail reached this list and send us a link to it? Other than the autopkgtest failures have you found anything that justifies an rc bug? So far the autopkgtest failures are only a delay in the transition, and kde has enough sid users that track most breakages. Happy hacking, -- "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs." -- Richard M. Stallman Saludos /\/\ /\ >< `/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
new KDE stack appears to break baloo-widgets/4:17.08.3-1 autopkgtest in testing
Dear Debian/Kubuntu Qt/KDE Maintainers, Last week I send you multiple (automatically generated) e-mails about KDE packages that appeared to break the autopkgtest of baloo-widgets. I am wondering if you investigated the current breakage of the breakage. If the regression is only in the autopkgtest and not in the baloo-widgets itself (I interpret the non-action as meaning that, as baloo-widgets in unstable isn't updated) I'd like to know, because if baloo-widgets is broken by the new versions, we need to file an RC bug in the next couple of days to prevent the KDE stack from migrating to testing. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
