On 2013-07-01 08:21, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks a lot for this work. > > On 30/06/13 at 23:32 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: >> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as >> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them. The packages can be >> found in the attached dd-list. >> >> The packages have been selected based on the following criteria: >> - The package had at least one RC bug without activity for the past >> 14 days. >> - If a bug is assigned to multiple packages, both packages will >> be affected[1]. >> - The RC bug affects both unstable and testing. >> - The affected package does not have any reverse dependencies in >> testing. >> >> - One of their RC bugs had "FTBFS" in their title. (*) >> - The source package had ai popcon inst value of 500 or less. (*) >> >> (*) These extra filter rules was applied to keep the list "down". The >> original list was 246. >> >> If the relevant RC bugs in the affected packages (those listed in >> "FTBFS-w-popcon-lt-500.txt") are not dealt with before the 8th of >> July, the packages will be removed from testing. Note that "dealt >> with" may also include downgrading a severity-inflated bug or fixing >> affected versions in the BTS. >> >> For reference, the original list is also included. > > Those criterias mix: > - criterias that apply to the RC bugs (no activity for > 14 days, > affects testing+unstable, title contains "FTBFS") > - criterias that apply to the source package (no rev-depends, > popcon<500) >
Yes, all of them has to apply for the bug/source to appear in the "removal list". > Some time ago, I experimented[1,2,3] with coming up with a list of > criterias for "important packages" (which I just renamed to "key > packages" to avoid the confusion with priority:important). > Key packages are packages that must be part of our stable releases > (= that must be in good shape to allow a Debian release). > > Currently, the following criterias are used: > | Key packages are: > | - packages whose popcon is higher than 5% of the max popcon (that's > | >7570 insts currently) In practise, we have err'ed on the side of keeping packages already at popcon >= 1000 (possibly even lower). When we applied the popcon <= 500 filter on the FTBFS bugs, it "only" took out about 25-30 bugs (leaving us on 102 RC bugs). > | OR > | - packages of priority >= standard > | OR > | - packages of section debian-installer > | OR > | - debian-installer, debian-cd, piuparts > | OR > | - build-dependencies of key packages [binary dependencies are covered > | by the popcon criteria] > Those are definitely keepers. > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg00496.html > [2] http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/key_packages.cgi > [3] > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-qa/udd.git;a=blob;f=web/cgi-bin/key_packages.cgi > > I think that having such criterias, and such a list of packages, would > be useful to better direct the work of RC bug-fixing. For example, there > are currently 1517 RC bugs affecting sid, but only 287 RC bugs affecting > sid's key packages. Of course, fixing all those 1517 RC bugs would be very > nice, but we might want to focus first on the 287 bugs, as those are the > ones really preventing Debian from being releasable. > Typically, the "key package" criteria could be used as a filter on > http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi . > > Could you please comment on the criterias for key packages? I would like > an "OK" from the release team before adding this to bugs.cgi, so that it's > not just "lucas made up those criterias". > Well, I could be interested in using your dataset for making my life easier for finding these candidates (i.e. reduce the amount of manual filtering I have to do). It could also do as a reasonable way of producing "draft" removal list. I have been asked if it was possible to periodically generate a data set that could be exposed to the PTS. I think your script is currently in a better shape for that purpose (even it may include non-leaf packages). But I cannot comment on whether we (the Release Team) are going to endorse it beyond that. > Thanks, > > Lucas > > ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51d134ee.5050...@thykier.net
