FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-04-2008, 06:32 PM
Joerg Jaspert
 
Default NEW processing

>> I have a list of tags. In Extremadura I had other ftpteam members and a
>> lintian maintainer look at it. Whenever this gets implemented this list will
>> be made public and then have a place on ftp-master.d.o webpage
>> somewhere. And everyone can comment on it.
> So it was already decided that it was going to be implemented in
> Extremadura meeting?

We already talked about it in Mar del Plata, and there lintian already
got a feature we want for it.

--
bye, Joerg
> What would you do if you wanted to retire from the project?
This is far easier than to get in!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-04-2008, 07:28 PM
Faidon Liambotis
 
Default NEW processing

Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> The particular pass through NEW that has been used to demonstrate the
> deficiency of NEW processing was necessitated by the rename
> iceweasel-l10n-hi to iceweasel-l10n-hi-in introduced in the previous
> upload (and processed in 3-4 days or so). This rename took place after
> uninstallability of iceweasel-l10n-all had been pointed out to the
> maintainer after he asked for an unblock on release. In essence, this
> whole trip through NEW would not have happened if the maintainer would
> actually routinely install his packages before uploading. I am all in
> favor of fast-tracking urgent stuff, but the deal should involve the
> maintainer making extra-sure to get things right, too.
Because we all know that uninstabillity problems can only occur when you
change the package name...

Or undistributable/illegal stuff. Or lintian errors.
In that sense, you should perform quality checks and moderate _every_
upload as well.

I'm all for doing legal checks and semi-automated quality/sanity checks
on the *first* upload.
But what's the point on doing it on binary package renames?
Crap can be introduced into the archive just as easily without it /ever/
processing NEW.

If the source package existed in the archive before it shouldn't pass
through NEW!

Quality assurance of existing packages is a job for the QA team.
The two teams should definitely cooperate, share common patterns and
possibly scripts.
In that way, all packages can be automatically or semi-automatically
checked, even those that don't ever change their package names.

Am I the only one that finds all of the above obvious?

Regards,
Faidon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-04-2008, 08:07 PM
Raphael Geissert
 
Default NEW processing

Neil Williams wrote:

> d) fix as many other lintian errors as possible throughout the archive.
> (Quite a lot of lintian errors - some that I would consider quite
> serious - affect several hundred packages.)

Actually, that's on my list of proposed QA RGs for squeeze, and am willing to
work on it (together with the no bashisms one [not just whatever dash doesn't
support], and others). But lets talk about that when the cal for proposals is
made.

Cheers,
Raphael Geissert



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-04-2008, 08:12 PM
Raphael Geissert
 
Default NEW processing

Hi Charles,

Charles Plessy wrote:

> Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:40:12PM -0600, Raphael Geissert a écrit :
>>
>> I of course do not want to say that reviewing packages in -mentors is always
>> useless, but here again we need to deal with yet another social problem which
>> is the lack of willingness by some people to work on their package to get it
>> in shape.
>
> Hi Raphael,
>
> I think that the workflow on -mentors does not discourage enough maintainers
> from working alone. Co-maintainance, work in a packaging team and use of VCS
> should be more often proposed after ITPs are filed (and of course, ITPs should
> be filed earlier).

Yes, I've seen some of those as well; those make me happy, actually. It is
always nice to work with someone who is willing to keep working to get it the
best way as possible. I love that.

That reminds me that another problem (probably the original source of these
issues) is that the documentation is not explicit enough or doesn't say all it
needs to/should say.

And before anyone tells me to stop complaining instead of working on it: I will,
I just have too many items on my todo list that should be done before.


>
> Have a nice day,
>

Cheers,
Raphael Geissert



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-04-2008, 08:19 PM
Russ Allbery
 
Default NEW processing

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:03:49PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> There should be no minor-severity bugs that result in lintian errors.
>> If there are, that's a bug in Lintian. Please report it. The lowest
>> threshold that produces an E tag is severity: important, likelihood:
>> possible.

> I know this is the current lintian policy on E vs. W, but that this
> wasn't the case historically. Is this the case for lintian 1.24? I
> believe that's the version in use on ftp-master currently. (It also
> appears to be the version that will be shipping with lenny?)

It's been the rough goal for a while, although we've become much clearer
about it recently. I think 1.24 should generally be okay, although of
course bugs have been fixed since then.

> And even under the new classification, "possibly important" bugs are
> still a far cry from things that should be treated as reasons for
> rejects, IMHO.

Sure, which is why ftp-master is only going to use a specific list of
tags. Joerg came to us and asked for the facility for exactly that
reason....

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-05-2008, 12:26 AM
Raphael Geissert
 
Default NEW processing

Faidon Liambotis wrote:

> Quality assurance of existing packages is a job for the QA team.

And since everybody makes part of the QA team what you are really saying
is: "Quality assurance of existing packages is a job for me".

ftp-masters are doing a great, often thankless, job. Instead of just saying what
they should or should not do why don't you volunteer and actually do something
about it? (e.g. the QA check part).

Cheers,
Raphael Geisser



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-05-2008, 12:28 AM
Raphael Geissert
 
Default NEW processing

Tzafrir Cohen wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:48:20PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
[...]
>>
>> What about encouraging those impatient folks (please don't be just exclusive
>> to DDs) to track down (at times from mentors.d.n) the source package and
>> review it themselves. Any finding should be notified to the maintainer and
>> CCed to ftpmasters so that they can REJECT the package if deserved, helping
>> out instead of just pestering.
>
> How do you track that down?
[...]

Check the ITP? mentors.d.n? contact the maintainer? contact ftp-master?

That's exactly why I said "track down".

Cheers,
Raphael Geissert


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 12-05-2008, 07:04 PM
Amaya
 
Default NEW processing

Clint Adams wrote:
> No, not more power to them. Conflating unnecessary tasks with privileged
> roles is a bad idea.

100% agreed.

--
·'`. It's never too late to have a happy childhood
: :' :
`. `'
`- Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 03-25-2009, 01:20 AM
"Steve M. Robbins"
 
Default NEW processing

Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon? There are 215
packages waiting [1] about half of which have been there 3 or more
weeks.

Last time I asked [2], the result was a large thread discussing what
manual work is done in processing NEW. I suggest reading through that
thread before adding a follow-up message here.


Just one pet peeve of mine:

In the case of a SONAME bump of an already-accepted library package, I
can't personally see any value in passing through NEW again. Surely
it's possible to change the infrastructure to simply accept this just
as we would a new version of the library that doesn't change SONAME.

Wouldn't that make sense?

Regards,
-Steve


[1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/12/msg00112.html
 
Old 03-25-2009, 01:37 AM
Russ Allbery
 
Default NEW processing

"Steve M. Robbins" <steve@sumost.ca> writes:

> Is the NEW queue going to get processed any time soon?

It was processed recently. One of the packages I uploaded to NEW just got
approved. It's not being processed horribly quickly, but it *is* being
processed.

> In the case of a SONAME bump of an already-accepted library package, I
> can't personally see any value in passing through NEW again.

These are already fast-tracked through NEW, so a large queue is mostly not
holding these up.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org