Hi, I'd like to join bug control to be able to work more effectively on apt, python-apt bugs (and probably some in the other packages I maintain as a Debian Developer in Debian and most of which I also maintain upstream).
I'm also about to request PPU for those packages. > Do you promise to be polite to bug reporters even if they are rude to you or > Ubuntu? Have you signed the Ubuntu Code of Conduct? Yes, yes. > Have you read Bugs/Triage, Bugs/Assignment, Bugs/Status and Bugs/Importance? > Do you have any questions about that documentation? Yes I read them, and I don't have any questions. > What sensitive data should you look for in a private Apport crash report bug > before making it public? See Bugs/Triage for more information. Coredumps and stuff like login data > Is there a particular package or group of packages that you are interested in > helping out with? Primarily apt and python-apt. Also dh-autoreconf, dir2ogg, gnu-efi, hardlink, hplip, ndisgtk, ndiswrapper - all of which I (co-)maintain upstream in Debian, so it's quite useful to be able to control bugs here as well, as I close them from changelogs uploaded to Debian. > Please list five or more bug reports which you have triaged and include an > explanation of your decisions. > Please note that these bugs should be representative of your very best work > and they should demonstrate > your understanding of the triage process and how to properly handle bugs. For > all the bugs in the list, > please indicate what importance you would give it and explain the reasoning. > Please use urls in your list of bugs. As an upstream APT developer, triaging the bug mostly ends up with knowing what the failure is and fixing it directly, so it's not really going to be a fancy list here. 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1547984 (not really completely done yet) APT warns about downloading a package when it cannot drop permissions. es20490446e set the importance to high which is slightly ridiculous, as a warning is just a minor inconvenience or "A usability issue that does not limit the functionality of a core application." and should thus be medium. 2. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1562733 This is APT rejecting repositories without SHA2 fields. After this turned out to become a problem for AppStream, I developed a work around and a test case for it, which is now part of 1.2.12 and 1.3~exp1 I think High is somewhat correct, as that's an annoying issue for a small set of people. 3. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/565364 I explained why this happens and actually rewrote the whole policy engine during last year's DebConf to fix this bug amongst a lot of others. Medium is correct here, as the old pinning engine worked reasonably well for a decade or something, that is, "A bug that has a moderate impact on a core application." 4. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/275994 Changed to a more reasonable title. The Debian bug was closed as wontfix, I guess we should probably do the same here, although I'm somewhat open to actually convincing the rest of the APT team to allow that as a hidden option, as it can be useful. There are a lot of older APT crashes that I worked on, but I cannot find them anymore, and that was a long time ago. I gradually improved APT, first by adding a file size to the cache to detect a truncated cache (which should actually be the sole reason crashes occur), and now it has a checksum. -- Debian Developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply directly below the part(s) it pertains to (`inline'). Thank you. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
