Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:46:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Anthony, are you subscribed to debian-x?  I thought for sure you
> weren't.]

I'm not, but it looks like mutt's "group reply" isn't clever enough to
add me to the Mail-Followup-To field without debian-x being explicitly
listed as a mailing list.

> On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:10:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
> > woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special cased".
> Oh ah.  Is that marking visible in any publicly-readable file?

auric:/org/ftp.debian.org/testing/data/testing/Bugs

The relevant line is "xutils 1" -- ie, xutils in testing has 1 RC
bug. Those numbers are rough and inaccurate, and shouldn't be relied
upon too heavily.

> > You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been
> > uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a
> > valid candidate.
> I had the impression -- perhaps mistaken -- that "valid candidate"
> wouldn't have shown up anyway.

Yup, it was mistaken. "Maintainer: Branden Robinson", "14 days old (needed
10 days), "Depends: foo bar" and "baz (source, i386) is (less) buggy!"
are all examples of lines that'll show up in update_excuses without
preventing the package from being considered as a valid candidate.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgptbPLJ6Lqft.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Branden Robinson]

[Anthony, are you subscribed to debian-x?  I thought for sure you
weren't.]

On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:10:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
> woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special cased".

Oh ah.  Is that marking visible in any publicly-readable file?

> Because it's helpful to have the fact that there're RC bugs in the
> unstable version coveniently available, whether they affect the move into
> testing or not.

Okay.  I agree that the information is useful, but it's less clear that
the message in question won't "hold up" a package's progress into
testing.

> You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been
> uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a
> valid candidate.

I had the impression -- perhaps mistaken -- that "valid candidate"
wouldn't have shown up anyway.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Q: How does a Unix guru have sex?
Debian GNU/Linux   | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck;
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |umount;sleep


pgp8YNYO3KaWA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:46:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Anthony, are you subscribed to debian-x?  I thought for sure you
> weren't.]

I'm not, but it looks like mutt's "group reply" isn't clever enough to
add me to the Mail-Followup-To field without debian-x being explicitly
listed as a mailing list.

> On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:10:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
> > woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special cased".
> Oh ah.  Is that marking visible in any publicly-readable file?

auric:/org/ftp.debian.org/testing/data/testing/Bugs

The relevant line is "xutils 1" -- ie, xutils in testing has 1 RC
bug. Those numbers are rough and inaccurate, and shouldn't be relied
upon too heavily.

> > You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been
> > uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a
> > valid candidate.
> I had the impression -- perhaps mistaken -- that "valid candidate"
> wouldn't have shown up anyway.

Yup, it was mistaken. "Maintainer: Branden Robinson", "14 days old (needed
10 days), "Depends: foo bar" and "baz (source, i386) is (less) buggy!"
are all examples of lines that'll show up in update_excuses without
preventing the package from being considered as a valid candidate.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''



msg04568/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Branden Robinson]

[Anthony, are you subscribed to debian-x?  I thought for sure you
weren't.]

On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:10:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
> woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special cased".

Oh ah.  Is that marking visible in any publicly-readable file?

> Because it's helpful to have the fact that there're RC bugs in the
> unstable version coveniently available, whether they affect the move into
> testing or not.

Okay.  I agree that the information is useful, but it's less clear that
the message in question won't "hold up" a package's progress into
testing.

> You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been
> uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a
> valid candidate.

I had the impression -- perhaps mistaken -- that "valid candidate"
wouldn't have shown up anyway.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Q: How does a Unix guru have sex?
Debian GNU/Linux   | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck;
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |umount;sleep



msg04566/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Yes, someone else pointed this out to me.  So you didn't have to special
> case it, and wouldn't have needed to even if I hadn't downgraded the
> bug?

I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special cased".

> 1) why such things are reported as "excuses" for a package not being
>considered when they won't stop a package from being considered;

Because it's helpful to have the fact that there're RC bugs in the
unstable version coveniently available, whether they affect the move into
testing or not.

> 2) why "valid candidate" wasn't appearing in the output; I interpreted
>the absence of "valid candidate" to mean that the package would not
>be moving to testing

You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been
uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a
valid candidate.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgpJOp7B7W9Hv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:14:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Huh? When update_excuses says, eg:
> 
>   + libcrypt-ssleay-perl (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
> mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is (less) buggy! (1 <= 1)
> 
> it's doesn't block the package from being considered. That was the case
> for xutils until you downgraded the bug.
> 
> And in any event it already went in today, along with pam.

Yes, someone else pointed this out to me.  So you didn't have to special
case it, and wouldn't have needed to even if I hadn't downgraded the
bug?

In that case I am confused about two things:

1) why such things are reported as "excuses" for a package not being
   considered when they won't stop a package from being considered;
2) why "valid candidate" wasn't appearing in the output; I interpreted
   the absence of "valid candidate" to mean that the package would not
   be moving to testing

If you could help me understand these things I sure would appreciate it.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |   "Bother," said Pooh, as he was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   assimilated by the Borg.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpjiKe9KzpnW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 02:53:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:33:12PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > > severity 143825 serious
> > Bug#143825: xutils: why is rstart.real a conffile?
> > Severity set to `serious'.
> Is it your intention not to let XFree86 4.2.1-3 propagate into testing
> until I fix this bug?

Huh? When update_excuses says, eg:

  + libcrypt-ssleay-perl (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is (less) buggy! (1 <= 1)

it's doesn't block the package from being considered. That was the case
for xutils until you downgraded the bug.

And in any event it already went in today, along with pam.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgpPIuE6LhMI3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Yes, someone else pointed this out to me.  So you didn't have to special
> case it, and wouldn't have needed to even if I hadn't downgraded the
> bug?

I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special cased".

> 1) why such things are reported as "excuses" for a package not being
>considered when they won't stop a package from being considered;

Because it's helpful to have the fact that there're RC bugs in the
unstable version coveniently available, whether they affect the move into
testing or not.

> 2) why "valid candidate" wasn't appearing in the output; I interpreted
>the absence of "valid candidate" to mean that the package would not
>be moving to testing

You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been
uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a
valid candidate.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''



msg04540/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:33:12PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > severity 143825 serious
> Bug#143825: xutils: why is rstart.real a conffile?
> Severity set to `serious'.

Is it your intention not to let XFree86 4.2.1-3 propagate into testing
until I fix this bug?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the
Debian GNU/Linux   | long road from capitalism to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying


pgp33OSkY8mXr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:14:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Huh? When update_excuses says, eg:
> 
>   + libcrypt-ssleay-perl (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
> mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is (less) buggy! (1 <= 1)
> 
> it's doesn't block the package from being considered. That was the case
> for xutils until you downgraded the bug.
> 
> And in any event it already went in today, along with pam.

Yes, someone else pointed this out to me.  So you didn't have to special
case it, and wouldn't have needed to even if I hadn't downgraded the
bug?

In that case I am confused about two things:

1) why such things are reported as "excuses" for a package not being
   considered when they won't stop a package from being considered;
2) why "valid candidate" wasn't appearing in the output; I interpreted
   the absence of "valid candidate" to mean that the package would not
   be moving to testing

If you could help me understand these things I sure would appreciate it.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |   "Bother," said Pooh, as he was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   assimilated by the Borg.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |



msg04539/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 02:53:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:33:12PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > > severity 143825 serious
> > Bug#143825: xutils: why is rstart.real a conffile?
> > Severity set to `serious'.
> Is it your intention not to let XFree86 4.2.1-3 propagate into testing
> until I fix this bug?

Huh? When update_excuses says, eg:

  + libcrypt-ssleay-perl (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is (less) buggy! (1 <= 1)

it's doesn't block the package from being considered. That was the case
for xutils until you downgraded the bug.

And in any event it already went in today, along with pam.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''



msg04537/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Processed: round and round we go

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:33:12PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > severity 143825 serious
> Bug#143825: xutils: why is rstart.real a conffile?
> Severity set to `serious'.

Is it your intention not to let XFree86 4.2.1-3 propagate into testing
until I fix this bug?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the
Debian GNU/Linux   | long road from capitalism to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying



msg04536/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature