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 05-18-2012, 08:50 AM
Paul Wise
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Leidert wrote:

> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few packages. Most of them got removed because newer versions were released. What about closing those reports, if an RM-request is filed?

ftpmaster already close bugs automatically when processing RM requests.

My thoughts are the same as last time this question got asked:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00004.html

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAKTje6EBmzQwxK8+73V2AnsM3D3SMBRMLF4jGqu3XibYksbGy w@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6EBmzQwxK8+73V2AnsM3D3SMBRMLF4jGqu3XibYksbGy w@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 05-18-2012, 08:56 AM
Neil Williams
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:50:12 +0800
Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> > Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few packages. Most of them got removed because newer versions were released. What about closing those reports, if an RM-request is filed?
>
> ftpmaster already close bugs automatically when processing RM requests.

... although there are bugs in that process, especially if the request
is to remove more than one package in a single bug report or if the
package in question has had a change of source package name.

>
> My thoughts are the same as last time this question got asked:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00004.html

As is that of the QA team in general:

http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/unknown-package/TODO

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 05-18-2012, 08:57 AM
Cyril Brulebois
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

Daniel Leidert <Daniel.Leidert.Spam@gmx.net> (18/05/2012):
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer)
> exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea
> to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might
> happen only for a few packages. Most of them got removed because newer
> versions were released. What about closing those reports, if an
> RM-request is filed?

AFAICT, bugs are closed with “Version: $lastversion+rm” when removals
happen. That hasn't always been the case, though.

Mraw,
KiBi.
 
Old 05-18-2012, 10:33 AM
Gergely Nagy
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

"Daniel Leidert" <Daniel.Leidert.Spam@gmx.net> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer)
> exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea
> to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might
> happen only for a few packages. Most of them got removed because newer
> versions were released. What about closing those reports, if an
> RM-request is filed?

This is a hard task, as there's no simple set of rules that would apply
to all bugs. Some were filed against packages that existed at a time,
but got removed without the bug being closed (this often happens when
the source remains, it just stops building a particular binary
package). In this case, the bug should be examined, and either
reassigned if it still applies, or closed (preferably with a version) if
it does not.

Then there are the case of misfiled bugs: bugs filed against packages
that never existed, but were installed from a third party repository
(these should be closed with an appropriate message, urging the
submitter to either contact the third party repo's maintainer, or
upstream, whichever is more applicable); typos in package names, where a
reapply would be best; bugs against packages not yet in the archive (but
either in NEW, or in the archive, but so fresh its not known to the BTS
yet): these should be left alone most of the time, but in certain cases,
it might be a good idea to contact the maintainer, so he'll know about
these reports, as the BTS will not notify him when the package enters
the archive. If he doesn't check the BTS page, but relies on email, he
won't know about the reports.

There are probably a few other corner cases, but as you can see, it's
not simple. That's why the list is so long still. On and off, a few
people (myself included) try to shorten a bit, and so far, it seems we
can handle the newly misfiled bugs.

Any help with getting the backlog down to a much smaller number would be
greatly appreciated. Updating the wiki[1] with guidelines and HOWTOs on
how to handle specific cases would also be desirable, and I'm happy to
help with either.

[1]: http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/unknown-package/TODO

--
|8]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87mx55n5ho.fsf@algernon.balabit">http://lists.debian.org/87mx55n5ho.fsf@algernon.balabit
 
Old 05-18-2012, 11:51 AM
Goswin von Brederlow
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

"Daniel Leidert" <Daniel.Leidert.Spam@gmx.net> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few packages. Most of them got removed because newer versions were released. What about closing those reports, if an RM-request is filed?
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=
>
> Regards, Daniel

I think for binary packages the bugs should be reassigned to (or at least
keep showing up for) the source package.

For the rest see other replies.

MfG
Goswin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87wr49k8q0.fsf@frosties.localnet">http://lists.debian.org/87wr49k8q0.fsf@frosties.localnet
 
Old 05-18-2012, 01:34 PM
"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo"
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

Hi,

2012/5/18 Daniel Leidert <Daniel.Leidert.Spam@gmx.net>:
> Hi,
>
> Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few packages. Most of them got removed because newer versions were released. What about closing those reports, if an RM-request is filed?
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=

As others have said, I asked the question only a few weeks ago:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00946.html

Reassigning 300 bugs from emacsX (X<23) to current emacs packages is
not very helpful, really. What I did is to notify the maintainers (or
related mailing lists) of the three biggest groups (linux, gcc, emacs)
to decide what to do.

Ben Hutchings took care of the ones of the kernel, I'm especially
focusing on the ones of GCC right now (trying to reproduce, closing or
reassigning when appropriate), and the same with emacs ones (but I did
only one session of those or so, closing some tagged fixed-upstream).
I also handled other reports here and there from other packages.

I'm thinking that the "fix one orphan bug before posting to
debian-devel@ flame threads" would be helpful here :-)

Don't know what to suggest, really, but it's a shame that some very
helpful bug reports are lost in this process for Debian. The are many
good bug reports about GCC, e.g. incorrect optimisations or wrong code
in some architectures that were closed so close as 1 month ago (so
they are not part of 4.7, they will be in 4.8), and which were
reported in Debian (and forwarded upstream by Debian maintainers) many
many years ago. Some similar ones reported years ago are still not
forwarded, but I haven't yet handled them to see if they are valid,
reproducible or what (#448370, #470557).

So I wouldn't blindly close those bug reports, and that's why I'm
triaging and handling them in my spare time.

Cheers.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAPQ4b8mZzsSt=mfgKO-3jSqTvspRD7KAY57VwKdvkTgvfnhJbg@mail.gmail.com">ht tp://lists.debian.org/CAPQ4b8mZzsSt=mfgKO-3jSqTvspRD7KAY57VwKdvkTgvfnhJbg@mail.gmail.com


Fri May 18 17:30:02 2012
Return-path: <bounce-debian-user=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:36:18 +0300
Received: from bendel.debian.org ([82.195.75.100]:43835)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.77)
(envelope-from <bounce-debian-user=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>)
id 1SVNLt-0005yq-Ee
for tom@linux-archive.org; Fri, 18 May 2012 16:36:17 +0300
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 132C0261; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:36:11 +0000 (UTC)
Old-Return-Path: <debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on bendel.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.0 required=4.0 tests=LDOSUBSCRIBER,LDO_WHITELIST,
T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2
X-Original-To: lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9F5189
for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:36:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3
tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from bendel.debian.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525)
with ESMTP id 36-0sv7rYxaJ for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>;
Fri, 18 May 2012 13:35:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight: using cached result; rate: -6.1
X-Greylist: delayed 590 seconds by postgrey-1.33 at bendel; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:35:59 UTC
Received: from mail.ddt-consult.de (mail.ddt-consult.de [176.9.143.18])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A10A514F
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:35:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ddt-consult.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853732C2696
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 15:25:58 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d list-post.mks-mail.de; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type
:content-type:in-reply-to:references:subject:subject
:mime-version:user-agent:reply-to:from:from:date:date:message-id
:received:received; s=lpm; t37347557; bh=0ubNqJnSJ9zgyvI62ibM
o7ky1OGKgcPOGb3+W4W+gDI=; b=Y72vmpgc8CredWzfBWFE3pWwR0i9hP9+I/Gx
YkTPHgneoI3ks19bdy0uFuQWizcDrSN96zixRvLRfUQ1SnkX+j 2F3tINQvKsCw+W
tiHGZInREMV1PdiY0GDZy5t4Fy3A4U56HXbERsxhOI3T7i15Ty ga1W1fQ0UQxJHY
poA5PDQX-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail
Received: from mail.ddt-consult.de ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail2.ddt-consult.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 20024)
with LMTP id ENKY5T9cx4aU for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>;
Fri, 18 May 2012 15:25:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from legolas.home.ddt.intern (p5DC36A31.dip.t-dialin.net [93.195.106.49])
(Authenticated sender: mks@list-post.mks-mail.de)
by mail.ddt-consult.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D038B2C268B
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 15:25:57 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4FB64DE5.4030306@list-post.mks-mail.de>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:25:57 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFya3VzIFNjaMO2bmhhYmVy? <debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de>
Reply-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: VirtualBox CD/DVD image cannot be removed
References: <CAPnO5hHvA8Xw=cpH4k-yBmRiWM+Lty+7rEvAFnT+b-dOfBfDMw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPnO5hHvA8Xw=cpH4k-yBmRiWM+Lty+7rEvAFnT+b-dOfBfDMw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
Resent-Message-ID: <xBZsfaeYwsD.A.7-H.LBltPB@bendel>
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/630957
X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-user.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:36:11 +0000 (UTC)

18.05.2012 15:16, Ryan Duan:

> Does anyone know how to report a bug to
> VirtualBox.org?

Go to virtualbox.org and click on "Community".

--
Regards
mks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4FB64DE5.4030306@list-post.mks-mail.de
 
Old 05-18-2012, 03:08 PM
Neil Williams
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:34:40 +0100
"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2012/5/18 Daniel Leidert <Daniel.Leidert.Spam@gmx.net>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our bug tracker contains items for packages, which do (not longer) exist. What should happen to them? I see, that it might be a good idea to keep them for the case, a package is re-introduced. But this might happen only for a few packages. Most of them got removed because newer versions were released. What about closing those reports, if an RM-request is filed?
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint=
>
> As others have said, I asked the question only a few weeks ago:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00946.html
>
> Reassigning 300 bugs from emacsX (X<23) to current emacs packages is
> not very helpful, really. What I did is to notify the maintainers (or
> related mailing lists) of the three biggest groups (linux, gcc, emacs)
> to decide what to do.

There's a big difference between these bugs and the rest - here there
are clear migration paths to later packages which can be used to triage
the bug reports in order not to lose reports. A lot of the rest *can*
be closed without more triage work because the package was removed, not
replaced. e.g. gcc-4.4 bugs may be applicable with gcc-4.7 and need to
be triaged. The opensync/multisync bugs just had to be closed without
even looking at any of them.

Identifying this subset (which could be quite large) which apply only
to packages which have no appropriate replacement packages would be a
very useful QA step and dramatically improve the total number of bugs
in this situation.

Simplest safeguard here is to ensure that the list of bugs closed in
this way is fed back to a comment in the original bug report against
ftp.debian.org which got the package removed in the first place and
which is the permanent record of the removal.

> Don't know what to suggest, really, but it's a shame that some very
> helpful bug reports are lost in this process for Debian. The are many
> good bug reports about GCC, e.g. incorrect optimisations or wrong code
> in some architectures that were closed so close as 1 month ago (so
> they are not part of 4.7, they will be in 4.8), and which were
> reported in Debian (and forwarded upstream by Debian maintainers) many
> many years ago. Some similar ones reported years ago are still not
> forwarded, but I haven't yet handled them to see if they are valid,
> reproducible or what (#448370, #470557).
>
> So I wouldn't blindly close those bug reports, and that's why I'm
> triaging and handling them in my spare time.

Where there are replacement packages, there is work to do. Otherwise,
the bugs need to be closed. The very small number of packages which get
re-introduced after ftpmaster removal don't merit special treatment in
this regard - as long as when the orphaned bugs are closed, some
mention is made of the bug numbers in the bug report at ftp.debian.org.

(If ftp.debian.org gets removed we will have larger problems, or no
problems at all, depending on your perspective.)

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 05-18-2012, 03:41 PM
"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo"
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

2012/5/18 Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>:
> There's a big difference between these bugs and the rest - here there
> are clear migration paths to later packages which can be used to triage
> the bug reports in order not to lose reports. A lot of the rest *can*
> be closed without more triage work because the package was removed, not
> replaced. e.g. gcc-4.4 bugs may be applicable with gcc-4.7 and need to
> be triaged. The opensync/multisync bugs just had to be closed without
> even looking at any of them.

Yes, I fully agree with that for the packages-removed-for-good.

The thing is that a big % of the initial bugs (1500+ when I brought
this up, 1200+ now) is made up of the "gcc like" cases: gcc, emacs,
linux, libdb, python2.4, various java stuff, tomcat5.5...

I don't know if they're 30, 50 or 80%, but definitely there is a big
amount of real bugs still related to current software shipped in
Debian.

Another question, perhaps unrelated is, what happens with the bugs
closed from egroupware or salome (removed from unstable/testing but
still present in stable releases) when their users look for them in
the BTS? They would be closed and archived, I suppose, and users of
stable wouldn't be able to find them easily -- and them maybe report
them again.

So at the moment I left those bugs alone. I assume that they will be
autodeleted by some process when they're not present in stable
anymore, but perhaps are wrong and that's why there are such high
number of orphan bugs.


Cheers.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAPQ4b8nh+UrvcoyZ10vPaHAVoaTAW5Em_1n6Y2N-uTDPMje9xA@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAPQ4b8nh+UrvcoyZ10vPaHAVoaTAW5Em_1n6Y2N-uTDPMje9xA@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 05-18-2012, 03:58 PM
"Thomas Preud'homme"
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

Le vendredi 18 mai 2012 17:41:55, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo a crit :
> 2012/5/18 Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>:
> > There's a big difference between these bugs and the rest - here there
> > are clear migration paths to later packages which can be used to triage
> > the bug reports in order not to lose reports. A lot of the rest *can*
> > be closed without more triage work because the package was removed, not
> > replaced. e.g. gcc-4.4 bugs may be applicable with gcc-4.7 and need to
> > be triaged. The opensync/multisync bugs just had to be closed without
> > even looking at any of them.
>
> Yes, I fully agree with that for the packages-removed-for-good.
>
> The thing is that a big % of the initial bugs (1500+ when I brought
> this up, 1200+ now) is made up of the "gcc like" cases: gcc, emacs,
> linux, libdb, python2.4, various java stuff, tomcat5.5...
>
> I don't know if they're 30, 50 or 80%, but definitely there is a big
> amount of real bugs still related to current software shipped in
> Debian.
>
> Another question, perhaps unrelated is, what happens with the bugs
> closed from egroupware or salome (removed from unstable/testing but
> still present in stable releases) when their users look for them in
> the BTS? They would be closed and archived, I suppose, and users of
> stable wouldn't be able to find them easily -- and them maybe report
> them again.

According to [1] salome is not part of any debian release now. Did I miss
something? IIRW, for package still in stable, if the -done mail contains the
right version then the bug will still be visible as long as it affects stable.

[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/salome.html

>
> So at the moment I left those bugs alone. I assume that they will be
> autodeleted by some process when they're not present in stable
> anymore, but perhaps are wrong and that's why there are such high
> number of orphan bugs.
>
>
> Cheers.

Cheers.
 
Old 05-18-2012, 04:03 PM
"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo"
 
Default What to do with bug reports against non-existing/removed packages

2012/5/18 Thomas Preud'homme <robotux@celest.fr>:
> According to [1] salome is not part of any debian release now. Did I miss
> something? IIRW, for package still in stable, if the -done mail contains the
> right version then the bug will still be visible as long as it affects stable.

Oh yes, egroupware only in oldstable... and I saw some entries of
salome [1] and mistakenly took them for "oldstable", not "unstable in
some architectures".

http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=salome

Cheers.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAPQ4b8=b+SZScVmv+DU_vtVWg+_-q-GbcbJLbQ5tE6Lk=zU5Rg@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAPQ4b8=b+SZScVmv+DU_vtVWg+_-q-GbcbJLbQ5tE6Lk=zU5Rg@mail.gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:15 AM.

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