Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
xxxterm: bugs 718074, flagged for removal in 8.3 days I use debian offline so it is of no consequence to me however I just wanted to say. xxxterm (now xombrero) is by far my favourite browser and rediculously faster than any other browser whilst still being highly useful and with better whitelisting control (javascript, cookies) by default too. Not a user interface for everyone in being primarily keyboard based but highly functional. In fact where firefox is almost useless on an old thinkpad, xombrero is quite snappy. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/380101.59925...@smtp145.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Hi Bill, Bill Allombert wrote (07 Oct 2013 22:04:21 GMT) : I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. I believe there are good chances that this kind of people realize that there's a problem at some point, if they're particularly interested in this package: either they're directly affected by the RC bugs affecting this package (it was removed for a reason, uh), or they'll miss some new feature implemented in a newer upstream version and will wonder why it's not in testing yet, or they'll suffer from some other bug and will have a look at the PTS. In all of this cases, $PACKAGE is not in testing anymore is likely to be a stronger help is needed signal for them than the mere presence of RC bugs. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/857gdop4tb@boum.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Bill Allombert wrote: I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. Would this be addressed by building some mechanism (making tombstone packages comes to mind, but there are many options) for apt to prompt to remove packages that were removed in the archive? I find myself having to do some package-origin queries with aptitude and some cross-checking with the PTS _anyway_ when upgrading a nontrivially-complicated system (including one that ever ran testing) between releases, so this seems like it's likely to be worth building regardless. -- Geoffrey Thomas http://ldpreload.com geo...@ldpreload.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1310080940110.16...@dr-wily.mit.edu
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 07/10/13 23:04, Bill Allombert wrote: I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. This, then, cause stable releases to be missing packages that users are depending on, which reduce the value of the distribution. `aptitude search '?obsolete'` is useful after upgrading a system to a new stable release, a trick I learned from: http://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/02/07/debian-cleanup-tip-2-get-rid-of-obsolete-packages/ Not directly related to this: a side effect of running debsecan is that if I see security issues accumulating for some package, I would likely check the PTS to see why it remains unfixed, or decide to remove or replace the package with something else that's still maintained. So if `aptitude search '?obsolete'` was run periodically, like debsecan, it could email the system admin when new items appear on the obsoletes list. I imagine that'd be a good way to notify of the situation being described here? Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52549549.1050...@pyro.eu.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Le Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:51:42PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer a écrit : I really doubt that possibly interested people will subscribe to all the packages they are interested in. Hello everybody, in one way or the other, there will always be some people who miss the information because it is sent in a channel that they are not familiar with. I think that the best solution is to have the information available in a systematic manner, and then let people rely on that source to automate display or messaging in the communication channel that is suitable for the use case that they want to support. This would make it easy for volunteers to write a script that periodically sends emails to this list about upcoming removals, or to add this information to the periodical WNPP email, so that it does not add to the traffic. By the way, I think that the automated removals (and the automated autopkg testing) are a big step forward. Let me take this opportunity to thank to the Release team for this ! Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131008233016.gd26...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013, Geoffrey Thomas wrote: Would this be addressed by building some mechanism (making tombstone packages comes to mind, but there are many options) for apt to prompt to remove packages that were removed in the archive? It is already addressed by the user-oriented package management frontends. E.g. aptitude lists them separately. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131008234424.gb...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 09:52:17AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: Hi, This is a friendly reminder. If you are listed below, then the listed packages of yours will be automatically removed from testing within 15 days. The first batch of automatic removals will happen in about 8 days. Please remember that fixing your RC bug(s) can sometimes be as simple as correcting the metadata of the bugs (see also #725321[0]) or (where inflated) downgrade the severity of the bug. This mail was a one-time public service annoucement; I *do not* intend to send out reminders in the future. Remember that you can pull the same data from [1] or [2]. I am concerned that in the event a package is removed from testing, the people most interested with restoring the package will miss the removal, since the package will stay installed on their systems. This, then, cause stable releases to be missing packages that users are depending on, which reduce the value of the distribution. This is not a new problem, and it is not entirely clear whether such early removal will reduce or increase this issue. However we should address it if we want Debian stable releases to be something users can rely on. So while it is possible that the _maintainer_ is not needing a friendly remainder, other interested third-party might. Cheers, Bill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131007220421.ga17...@master.debian.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Hi, On Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2013, Bill Allombert wrote: So while it is possible that the _maintainer_ is not needing a friendly remainder, other interested third-party might. anyone interested in a package can opt-in via the PTS... cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On Tuesday 08 October 2013 01:51:41 Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Dienstag, 8. Oktober 2013, Bill Allombert wrote: So while it is possible that the _maintainer_ is not needing a friendly remainder, other interested third-party might. anyone interested in a package can opt-in via the PTS... I really doubt that possibly interested people will subscribe to all the packages they are interested in. -- Antiguo proverbio del Viejo Machi: Prefiero que mi cerebro esté en la cresta de la ola, y mi PC un paso atrás sirviéndolo y no tener mi PC en el 'estado del arte' y mi cerebro un paso atrás asistiéndola. http://www.grulic.org.ar/lurker/message/20090507.020516.ffda0441.es.html Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Hi, On 06/10/13 08:52, Niels Thykier wrote: kfreebsd-8: bugs 720470,717959,720476, flagged for removal in 14.7 days Not sure why that's appearing in this list because: 1. the package was removed from testing over a month ago at the request of the maintainer, and 2. when that happened the bugs listed were closed? Perhaps this is because the script does not notice 1. and therefore despite 2. it still thinks affected versions are in testing? Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/525144dc.6090...@pyro.eu.org
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 2013-10-06 13:09, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Hi, On 06/10/13 08:52, Niels Thykier wrote: kfreebsd-8: bugs 720470,717959,720476, flagged for removal in 14.7 days Not sure why that's appearing in this list because: 1. the package was removed from testing over a month ago at the request of the maintainer, and 2. when that happened the bugs listed were closed? Perhaps this is because the script does not notice 1. and therefore despite 2. it still thinks affected versions are in testing? Regards, Hey, Thanks for reporting this. It looks like this is caused by kfreebsd-8 being marked with Extra-Source-Only: yes, presumably because something lists it in Built-Using. For most parts it means the package is already removed but not all tools seem to recognise this e.g. the PTS, the BTS (allegedly) and by extension the auto-removal script. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52518ce2.9010...@thykier.net
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net (2013-10-06): It looks like this is caused by kfreebsd-8 being marked with Extra-Source-Only: yes, presumably because something lists it in Built-Using. For most parts it means the package is already removed but not all tools seem to recognise this e.g. the PTS, the BTS (allegedly) and by extension the auto-removal script. $ apt-cache show debian-installer-7.0-netboot-kfreebsd-amd64|grep Built-Using|grep -o 'kfreebsd\S\+' kfreebsd-8 kfreebsd-9 Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: First autoremovals happen in about 8 days
On 06/10/13 08:52, Niels Thykier wrote: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) g...@debian.org vice: bugs 693641, flagged for removal in 8.3 days Bug #693641 is another interesting edge case: Found in version vice/2.3.dfsg-4 (testing, unstable, stable) Fixed in version vice/2.4.dfsg-1 (unstable) Marked as done But it didn't quite build everywhere - kfreebsd-amd64 and s390 still have out-of-date 2.3.dfsg-4 binaries in sid. I'm not sure if this logic was intended, but it actually makes sense: the fixed version cannot migrate to testing and replace the buggy one. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5251bd46.8070...@pyro.eu.org
