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 04-07-2011, 05:54 PM
Neil Williams
 
Default MBF Bug#621277: ggz-grubby: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:13:43 +0200
Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> wrote:

> On 2011-04-06 codehelp@debian.org wrote:
> > Package: ggz-grubby
> > Severity: normal
> > User: codehelp@debian.org
> > Usertags: la-file-removal
>
> > To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy
> > 10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs
> > against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed
> > or stripped of the dependency_libs variable.
> [...]
>
> Hello,
>
> Please stop this mass bug filing.

It'll pause whilst I add a few more checks to the process.

> a) There were duplicate bugs filed.

It would have been helpful to list some of those. I've found one out of
the bugs submitted against the packages you mention.

> b) Bugs were filed for issues recently solved.

I do try and avoid that by constantly updating the source data prior to
each phase, but as you describe, some lag is inevitable.

> c) The bugs reports are unversioned.
>
> I can completely understand that a and b can occassionally happen due
> to timing issues. However imnsho a MBF with unversioned bug-reports is
> not acceptable.

I've been updating the process at this end and I'll be able to add the
version information for the next runs. However, the original data does
not include a version so the only version number available is what can
be retrieved from either an apt-cache on sid or rmadison. That
therefore suffers from the same timing problems as the other issues
you've described.

Some duplicates come from the Ubuntu changes and those have usertags,
so I'll add that check to the processing. I missed that, so apologies
on that score.

That led to #621246 being missed and #620742 being added.

> cu and- closing three invalid reports in ggz-* -dreas

The three bugs I reported against ggz* yesterday were #621246, #621277
and #621339. The other two are not duplicates but have had recent
uploads which might not have got into the source data. Certainly for
#621246, the upload which is currently 1 day old in sid has the dependency_libs emptied. I don't think there's any way that the process can reliably catch uploads that new but thanks for fixing that package.

I'll add the version available on the mirrors at the time of processing,
albeit that the version may not be the very latest version uploaded.

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 04-07-2011, 06:01 PM
Neil Williams
 
Default MBF Bug#621277: ggz-grubby: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:13:43 +0200
Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> wrote:

Forgot to add, the current version of the script is here:
http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/la-file-bugs.pl.txt

(simply because it was convenient for me to work on the script from
more than one machine)

I've not updated that with the version retrieval or to check for the
ubuntu usertag yet. Patches are welcome (despite this not actually being
in version control anywhere - I could be persuaded to put this into
Emdebian SVN but it seems like overkill to create an Alioth project).

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 04-09-2011, 07:57 AM
Andreas Metzler
 
Default MBF Bug#621277: ggz-grubby: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs

Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:13:43 +0200
> Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> wrote:

>> On 2011-04-06 codehelp@debian.org wrote:
>> > Package: ggz-grubby
>> > Severity: normal
>> > User: codehelp@debian.org
>> > Usertags: la-file-removal

>> > To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy
>> > 10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs
>> > against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed
>> > or stripped of the dependency_libs variable.
>> [...]
[...]
>> a) There were duplicate bugs filed.

> It would have been helpful to list some of those. I've found one out of
> the bugs submitted against the packages you mention.

I have not done a systematic check, but there is e.g. 621228 or 621246
[...]

>> c) The bugs reports are unversioned.

>> I can completely understand that a and b can occassionally happen due
>> to timing issues. However imnsho a MBF with unversioned bug-reports is
>> not acceptable.

> I've been updating the process at this end and I'll be able to add the
> version information for the next runs. However, the original data does
> not include a version so the only version number available is what can
> be retrieved from either an apt-cache on sid or rmadison. That
> therefore suffers from the same timing problems as the other issues
> you've described.
[...]

So, you need to improve on the process and add versioning to the source
data. Reporting against the latests version in sid when you have not
verified this is the correct version is worse than omitting the
version info. You will (occasionally) report incorrect versioning
instead of saying "I don't know".

cu andreas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: l3g578-9mc.ln1@argenau.downhill.at.eu.org">http://lists.debian.org/l3g578-9mc.ln1@argenau.downhill.at.eu.org
 
Old 04-23-2011, 10:45 AM
Julien Cristau
 
Default MBF Bug#621277: ggz-grubby: Getting rid of unneeded *.la / emptying dependency_libs

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 19:13:43 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:

> On 2011-04-06 codehelp@debian.org wrote:
> > Package: ggz-grubby
> > Severity: normal
> > User: codehelp@debian.org
> > Usertags: la-file-removal
>
> > To finish an old release goal from Squeeze, to comply with Policy
> > 10.2 and to ease the introduction of MultiArch, I'm filing bugs
> > against packages which contain .la files which can be either removed
> > or stripped of the dependency_libs variable.
> [...]
>
> Hello,
>
> Please stop this mass bug filing.
> a) There were duplicate bugs filed.
> b) Bugs were filed for issues recently solved.
> c) The bugs reports are unversioned.
>
> I can completely understand that a and b can occassionally happen due
> to timing issues. However imnsho a MBF with unversioned bug-reports is
> not acceptable.
>
Ack. Also I think this should simply be a lintian check, there's no
need to have a mass bug filing about it.

Cheers,
Julien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110423104510.GG2790@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr">http ://lists.debian.org/20110423104510.GG2790@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:50 AM.

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