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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Masters Of The Universe

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-22-2009, 10:43 PM
charliej
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 17:30 -0600, Nathan Handler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For those of you who might be unaware, I have taken over Siegfried
> Gevatter's (RainCT) role of REVU Coordinator. For the past few days, I
> have been thinking about something, and I want to get the opinions of
> the rest of the people in the community before taking any action.
>
> Currently, in order for a new package to enter the repositories, it
> needs to be uploaded to REVU. There, it can wait either a few hours,
> days, or even months for a MOTU to review it. If the MOTU finds
> something wrong, the contributor needs to make the necessary
> corrections and upload again to REVU. They then need to wait for the
> package to get reviewed a second time. This goes on and on until 2
> MOTUs find the package to be acceptable for the repositories and
> advocate it.
>
> Most people that I have spoken with about REVU feel that the biggest
> downside about it is the long delay between the first upload to REVU
> and the point at which the package enters the repositories. This long
> delay is mainly due to the waiting period between uploading a modified
> version of the package and a MOTU re-reviewing it. This is what got me
> thinking, if we can reduce the number of times that a contributor
> needs to upload a package to REVU, we can greatly decrease the delay.
>
> One way that we can accomplish this is by having REVU perform some
> automated checks of the source package (more than it does now). We
> could then have it add a comment to the upload mentioning what was
> wrong, and send it to the Needs Work list. This automatic check could
> look for things such as a debian/changelog entry that has a proper
> version and target distribution, and closes a needs-packaging bug on
> Launchpad. These are common issues that I have seen on the majority of
> the packages that I have reviewed on REVU. By automatically sending
> them to the Needs Packaging list with a comment, the uploader will be
> made aware of the issues with the package, and a MOTU will not waste
> their time reviewing a package that is known to have errors in it.

If it would also send an email of the comment to the uploader would be
nice
>
> I am aware that REVU currently checks that the package has a valid
> Maintainer in debian/control, has a debian/watch file or
> get-orig-source target, and that it is lintian clean (when run on the
> .dsc); however, it seems that most people ignore the messages that it
> displays above the comments. This is one reason why I feel adding an
> actual comment and sending it to the Needs Work list would be much
> more beneficial.
>
> Like I said, I am interested in hearing what the rest of the community
> things about this idea.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Nathan Handler (nhandler)
> REVU Coordinator
>
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-22-2009, 11:11 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:30:29 -0600 Nathan Handler <nhandler@ubuntu.com>
wrote:

snip lots of good stuff I generally agree with.

>This automatic check could
>look for things such as a debian/changelog entry that has a proper
>version and target distribution, and closes a needs-packaging bug on
>Launchpad. These are common issues that I have seen on the majority of
>the packages that I have reviewed on REVU.

More snippage.

The purposes of needs packaging bugs are to give people a way to request
things get packaged, to give packagers an idea what people would like to
see, and to make work in progress visible to avoid duplication.

It would be a shame to not upload a package due to lack of filling out some
form. Needs packaging bus are a good idea, but to block anything due to
lack of one puts form over function. Please leave this one out.

Scott K

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-22-2009, 11:11 PM
Nathan Handler
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:43 PM, charliej <cjsmo@cableone.net> wrote:
> If it would also send an email of the comment to the uploader would be
> nice

You can currently have REVU notify you via email about everything
related to your uploads [1]. This means that if somebody comments on
one of your uploads, you will get an email.

[1] http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/profile.py/preferences

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-22-2009, 11:25 PM
Nathan Handler
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:30:29 -0600 Nathan Handler <nhandler@ubuntu.com>
> wrote:
> The purposes of needs packaging bugs are to give people a way to request
> things get packaged, to give packagers an idea what people would like to
> see, and to make work in progress visible to avoid duplication.
>
> It would be a shame to not upload a package due to lack of filling out some
> form. Needs packaging bus are a good idea, but to block anything due to
> lack of one puts form over function. Please leave this one out.

I completely agree with you Scott. I do not feel that creating and
closing a needs-packaging bug for a package you intend to package
yourself serves any significant purpose. However, many wiki pages list
a needs-packaging bug as a requirement for a new package. I am not
sure if this requirement is an official requirement, but it is listed
in enough wiki pages that it is treated as such. In my experience, if
the only thing missing in a package is the closing of a
needs-packaging bug, the package is either uploaded as-is, or the MOTU
modifies the package to close the bug. However, I do not see anything
wrong (if a needs-packaging bug is a real requirement) with having an
automated check of the package when it is first uploaded that checks
to see if it closes a needs-packaging bug. Since it happens right when
the package is uploaded, the uploader can easily make the change. I
feel this is very different than asking the uploader to close a
needs-packaging bug after several months of no comments, when the rest
of the package is good.

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-22-2009, 11:31 PM
Loc Martin
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

Nathan Handler wrote:
> One way that we can accomplish this is by having REVU perform some
> automated checks of the source package (more than it does now). We
> could then have it add a comment to the upload mentioning what was
> wrong, and send it to the Needs Work list. This automatic check could
> look for things such as a debian/changelog entry that has a proper
> version and target distribution, and closes a needs-packaging bug on
> Launchpad. These are common issues that I have seen on the majority of
> the packages that I have reviewed on REVU. By automatically sending
> them to the Needs Packaging list with a comment, the uploader will be
> made aware of the issues with the package, and a MOTU will not waste
> their time reviewing a package that is known to have errors in it.
>
> I am aware that REVU currently checks that the package has a valid
> Maintainer in debian/control, has a debian/watch file or
> get-orig-source target, and that it is lintian clean (when run on the
> .dsc); however, it seems that most people ignore the messages that it
> displays above the comments. This is one reason why I feel adding an
> actual comment and sending it to the Needs Work list would be much
> more beneficial.

What happens when lintian (or another automated check) throws an error,
but that error is not justified? I've seen the case for all cdemu
related packages (for example
http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=cdemu-client ) where
lintian reports an error but according to the packager (and my newbie
review ) the error is bogus. Maybe it would be possible to get
overrides after asking on IRC for a MOTU to check it (even without
reviewing the whole package, just checking the error)?

BTW, the same packages have been uploaded to revu on December *2007* and
all errors fixed close to one year ago, but the fact the uploader
maintains its packages so well means for each upload (new upstream
versions) the date on REVU changes, and the stuff has been sitting there
for far longer than it appear.

Loc

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-22-2009, 11:44 PM
Nathan Handler
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Loc Martin <loic.martin3@gmail.com> wrote:
> What happens when lintian (or another automated check) throws an error,
> but that error is not justified? I've seen the case for all cdemu
> related packages (for example
> http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=cdemu-client ) where
> lintian reports an error but according to the packager (and my newbie
> review ) the error is bogus. Maybe it would be possible to get
> overrides after asking on IRC for a MOTU to check it (even without
> reviewing the whole package, just checking the error)?

I actually had thought about this issue a bit. This lintian error that
you mention is not the only instance of a package that is not lintian
clean that is technically correct. The issue is, I personally can't
think of any reliable way to check for these cases. Having a MOTU
check the error is certainly possible, but I would prefer to keep this
as automated as possible. This is one reason that I sent an email to
the mailing list; I am hoping that someone can come up with an
efficient way to handle these exceptions.

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-23-2009, 12:08 AM
charliej
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 18:11 -0600, Nathan Handler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:43 PM, charliej <cjsmo@cableone.net> wrote:
> > If it would also send an email of the comment to the uploader would be
> > nice
>
> You can currently have REVU notify you via email about everything
> related to your uploads [1]. This means that if somebody comments on
> one of your uploads, you will get an email.
>
> [1] http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/profile.py/preferences

I was not aware of that, cool. Great idea.
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-23-2009, 12:12 AM
James Westby
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 18:44 -0600, Nathan Handler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Loc Martin <loic.martin3@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What happens when lintian (or another automated check) throws an error,
> > but that error is not justified? I've seen the case for all cdemu
> > related packages (for example
> > http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=cdemu-client ) where
> > lintian reports an error but according to the packager (and my newbie
> > review ) the error is bogus. Maybe it would be possible to get
> > overrides after asking on IRC for a MOTU to check it (even without
> > reviewing the whole package, just checking the error)?
>
> I actually had thought about this issue a bit. This lintian error that
> you mention is not the only instance of a package that is not lintian
> clean that is technically correct. The issue is, I personally can't
> think of any reliable way to check for these cases. Having a MOTU
> check the error is certainly possible, but I would prefer to keep this
> as automated as possible. This is one reason that I sent an email to
> the mailing list; I am hoping that someone can come up with an
> efficient way to handle these exceptions.
>

For lintian there are lintian overrides.

It won't solve the issue of e.g. checking installability when someone
uploads two packages, one of which depends on the other.

Thanks,

James


--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-23-2009, 12:21 AM
Nathan Handler
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:12 PM, James Westby <jw+debian@jameswestby.net> wrote:
> For lintian there are lintian overrides.
>
> It won't solve the issue of e.g. checking installability when someone
> uploads two packages, one of which depends on the other.

That is true James. Technically, if I recall correctly, packages
should be lintian clean before being uploaded to the repositories. For
warnings/errors that do not matter, you can override them. However,
there are many packages that have been uploaded that are not lintian
clean. The question is, should we allow this bad practice to continue,
or should we enforce that packages be lintian clean? I have a feeling
that new contributors will not care much either way, but that certain
developers will have an issue with requiring that all packages be
lintian clean (or have an override).

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 
Old 01-23-2009, 12:42 AM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default REVU: Automated Package Checks

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:25:53 -0600 Nathan Handler <nhandler@ubuntu.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com>
wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:30:29 -0600 Nathan Handler <nhandler@ubuntu.com>
>> wrote:
>> The purposes of needs packaging bugs are to give people a way to request
>> things get packaged, to give packagers an idea what people would like to
>> see, and to make work in progress visible to avoid duplication.
>>
>> It would be a shame to not upload a package due to lack of filling out
some
>> form. Needs packaging bus are a good idea, but to block anything due to
>> lack of one puts form over function. Please leave this one out.
>
>I completely agree with you Scott. I do not feel that creating and
>closing a needs-packaging bug for a package you intend to package
>yourself serves any significant purpose. However, many wiki pages list
>a needs-packaging bug as a requirement for a new package. I am not
>sure if this requirement is an official requirement, but it is listed
>in enough wiki pages that it is treated as such. In my experience, if
>the only thing missing in a package is the closing of a
>needs-packaging bug, the package is either uploaded as-is, or the MOTU
>modifies the package to close the bug. However, I do not see anything
>wrong (if a needs-packaging bug is a real requirement) with having an
>automated check of the package when it is first uploaded that checks
>to see if it closes a needs-packaging bug. Since it happens right when
>the package is uploaded, the uploader can easily make the change. I
>feel this is very different than asking the uploader to close a
>needs-packaging bug after several months of no comments, when the rest
>of the package is good.
>

I think it's fine to mention, but I wouldn't want the package rejected or knocked into some
kind of needs work state as a result.

Scott K

--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 PM.

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