On Thu Jan 9, 2025 at 10:29 AM CET, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 09:11:02PM +0100, Serafeim (Serafi) Zanikolas wrote: > > hi Holger, > > as you have addressed me here and... > > > On Wed Jan 8, 2025 at 11:57 AM CET, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > (actually adequate is run on many more binary packages on piuparts.d.o, > > > because > > > p.d.o is not only testing unstable...) > > > > > > I would have loved if a test run with the new adequate on all those > > > packages would > > > have been made before the old adequate got kicked out. I guess > > > technically it's > > > not too late to do such a test run on the archive. > > sure, let's find out! wouldn't this be simply a matter of pinning adequate > > to > > testing/unstable? or even easier, you could just copy the adequate > > executable > > from unstable to a bookworm instance (since adequate's only versioned > > dependency > > is libc6 (>= 2.34) and latest stable ships 2.36 > > ... and here ^, I have to tell you that's *your* duty when rewriting adequate > in another langugage.
happy to do so, it's just that I thought that I was talking to somebody from the piuparts team :) your "I'm really curious whether this will blow up" is completely devoid of technical specifics, and frankly comes across as condensending. your "70k packages" made me think that you're worried about scalability, but skimming through piuparts.d.o logs suggests that piuparts invokes adequate for one package at a time, so that's not it. > > that might have made sense with an unmaintained adequate, but > > I've added three new checks since the rewrite and it'd make no sense to > > have to > > wait for a stable releases to use them (yes, I also owe you a patch to > > update > > the hardwired list of adequate tags in piuparts; I've been holding back > > because > > every single message from you on adequate comes across as bitter) > > I'm sorry if I come accross as bitter but I've been trying to tell > you since the rewrite about this (and other problems) and that the new > adequate needed more testing before uploading to unstable, but you just didnt > listen... I have written to the piuparts team *prior* to uploading the rewrite to unstable, and the only response I received was positive (https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/piuparts-devel/2024-July/009870.html). did you respond to that email and it got lost on the way, or was it in another context? (I'm discounting your initial, private response to my ITA, which was before the actual rewrite) as for "other problems", I note that you have filed exactly zero bugs against adequate since the rewrite if you care about adequate, *please* tone down the negativity and file actual bugs with specifics thanks, serafi
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
