Re: Policy proposal: Consistent use of UNRELEASED in debian/changelog
On 2020-09-28 08 h 40, Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > po 28. 9. 2020 v 2:08 odesílatel Louis-Philippe Véronneau > napsal: > >> Hi! >> >> I am proposing a minor addition to the DPT policy to try to make the use >> of UNRELEASED in debian/changelog more consistent. The full diff can be >> found here [1]. >> > > I agree with this proposal but please change the wording a bit as > per rfc2119 :) > Thanks for all the comments and improvements people proposed. Ondřej merged my MR last night, so it's now part of policy. Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Policy proposal: Consistent use of UNRELEASED in debian/changelog
On 2020/10/06 17:53, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > Thanks for all the comments and improvements people proposed. > > Ondřej merged my MR last night, so it's now part of policy. Yay! Thanks! -Jonathan -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Debian, the universal operating system.
Re: Newcomers project: DPMT/PAPT pristine-tar verification
On 2020-10-03 15 h 35, Sandro Tosi wrote: > attached the dd-list of the packages missing the pristine-tar branch (some > may have been moved/removed, but these are actual repos in DPT) > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:38 AM Sandro Tosi wrote: > >> Hello, >> i would like to propose a project to make sure our teams (DPMT/PAPT) >> repos are using pristine-tar properly. >> >> The checks i have in mind for now, are: >> >> * pristine-tar branch must exist, if not -> it's a bug >> * pristine-tar + upstream branch must produce the same tarball as >> downloaded from the archive, if not -> it's a bug >> * bonus point: fix the repo if it doesn't generate the right tarball >> and or the branch is missing. >> * bonus point: make this into a service that runs regularly (not >> strictly necessary to be limited to us) >> >> i guess we should have a brief discussion about additional checks >> and/or procedures before "assigning" it to a volunteer. let's say up >> to 2 weeks of discussion, and during the same period volunteers can >> nominate themselves. >> >> I marked this project as newcomers as it doesn't require to be a DD/DM >> to work on it, you just need a salsa account and access to our teams. >> a handy tool to retrieve all our repos is at >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules >> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-apps >> >> that contains a config file for `mr` and a `checkout` script to fetch >> the repos registered in that config file. >> >> Please feel free to discuss this project now :) I had a chat with folks in #debian-qa last night, as I agree such checks would be nice to have. 1. Lintian is not suited for that kind of checks, as it does not have network access. Frankensteining lintian to do that kind of stuff would surely be met with fierce opposition. 2. The vcswatch script [1] from the QA team already does something akin to what we would want. It's written in Perl [2], but doesn't look terribly complicated. When a check doesn't pass, it issues an action-item like this one [3]. I think the first step would be modifying vcswatcher to issue warnings for: * the absence of pristine-tar branches * missing git tags * repositories using 'master' instead of 'debian/master' as the main branch Once these are flagged, we can easily script a way to fix them, maybe even using lintian-brush? As for the problem of pristine-tar and the upstream branch not producing the same tarballs, I think it would be best to have that done in another script altogether. Cheers, [1]: https://qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/vcswatch [2]: https://salsa.debian.org/qa/qa/-/blob/master/cgi-bin/vcswatch [3]: https://tracker.debian.org/action-items/1469895 -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Newcomers project: DPMT/PAPT pristine-tar verification
On 2020-10-06 12 h 07, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > On 2020-10-03 15 h 35, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> attached the dd-list of the packages missing the pristine-tar branch (some >> may have been moved/removed, but these are actual repos in DPT) >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:38 AM Sandro Tosi wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> i would like to propose a project to make sure our teams (DPMT/PAPT) >>> repos are using pristine-tar properly. >>> >>> The checks i have in mind for now, are: >>> >>> * pristine-tar branch must exist, if not -> it's a bug >>> * pristine-tar + upstream branch must produce the same tarball as >>> downloaded from the archive, if not -> it's a bug >>> * bonus point: fix the repo if it doesn't generate the right tarball >>> and or the branch is missing. >>> * bonus point: make this into a service that runs regularly (not >>> strictly necessary to be limited to us) >>> >>> i guess we should have a brief discussion about additional checks >>> and/or procedures before "assigning" it to a volunteer. let's say up >>> to 2 weeks of discussion, and during the same period volunteers can >>> nominate themselves. >>> >>> I marked this project as newcomers as it doesn't require to be a DD/DM >>> to work on it, you just need a salsa account and access to our teams. >>> a handy tool to retrieve all our repos is at >>> >>> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules >>> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-apps >>> >>> that contains a config file for `mr` and a `checkout` script to fetch >>> the repos registered in that config file. >>> >>> Please feel free to discuss this project now :) > > I had a chat with folks in #debian-qa last night, as I agree such checks > would be nice to have. > > 1. Lintian is not suited for that kind of checks, as it does not have > network access. Frankensteining lintian to do that kind of stuff would > surely be met with fierce opposition. > > 2. The vcswatch script [1] from the QA team already does something akin > to what we would want. It's written in Perl [2], but doesn't look > terribly complicated. When a check doesn't pass, it issues an > action-item like this one [3]. > > I think the first step would be modifying vcswatcher to issue warnings for: > > * the absence of pristine-tar branches > * missing git tags > * repositories using 'master' instead of 'debian/master' as the main branch > > Once these are flagged, we can easily script a way to fix them, maybe > even using lintian-brush? I meant Debian Janitor here. I don't know the codebase enough, but in my mind, having the thing that fixes problems and the thing that flags them be separate is valuable. I don't know if Janitor follows that philosophy though. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Newcomers project: DPMT/PAPT pristine-tar verification
Hi, IMO this is a good job for Janitor. I don't know if I would like to add the possibility to make the merge without human approval, but for me a MR from Janitor could be enough. On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 1:14 PM Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > On 2020-10-06 12 h 07, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > > On 2020-10-03 15 h 35, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >> attached the dd-list of the packages missing the pristine-tar branch > (some > >> may have been moved/removed, but these are actual repos in DPT) > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:38 AM Sandro Tosi wrote: > >> > >>> Hello, > >>> i would like to propose a project to make sure our teams (DPMT/PAPT) > >>> repos are using pristine-tar properly. > >>> > >>> The checks i have in mind for now, are: > >>> > >>> * pristine-tar branch must exist, if not -> it's a bug > >>> * pristine-tar + upstream branch must produce the same tarball as > >>> downloaded from the archive, if not -> it's a bug > >>> * bonus point: fix the repo if it doesn't generate the right tarball > >>> and or the branch is missing. > >>> * bonus point: make this into a service that runs regularly (not > >>> strictly necessary to be limited to us) > >>> > >>> i guess we should have a brief discussion about additional checks > >>> and/or procedures before "assigning" it to a volunteer. let's say up > >>> to 2 weeks of discussion, and during the same period volunteers can > >>> nominate themselves. > >>> > >>> I marked this project as newcomers as it doesn't require to be a DD/DM > >>> to work on it, you just need a salsa account and access to our teams. > >>> a handy tool to retrieve all our repos is at > >>> > >>> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules > >>> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-apps > >>> > >>> that contains a config file for `mr` and a `checkout` script to fetch > >>> the repos registered in that config file. > >>> > >>> Please feel free to discuss this project now :) > > > > I had a chat with folks in #debian-qa last night, as I agree such checks > > would be nice to have. > > > > 1. Lintian is not suited for that kind of checks, as it does not have > > network access. Frankensteining lintian to do that kind of stuff would > > surely be met with fierce opposition. > > > > 2. The vcswatch script [1] from the QA team already does something akin > > to what we would want. It's written in Perl [2], but doesn't look > > terribly complicated. When a check doesn't pass, it issues an > > action-item like this one [3]. > > > > I think the first step would be modifying vcswatcher to issue warnings > for: > > > > * the absence of pristine-tar branches > > * missing git tags > > * repositories using 'master' instead of 'debian/master' as the main > branch > > > > Once these are flagged, we can easily script a way to fix them, maybe > > even using lintian-brush? > > I meant Debian Janitor here. > > I don't know the codebase enough, but in my mind, having the thing that > fixes problems and the thing that flags them be separate is valuable. I > don't know if Janitor follows that philosophy though. > > -- > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org > ⠈⠳⣄ > > > >
Re: Policy proposal: Consistent use of UNRELEASED in debian/changelog
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 1:03 PM Jonathan Carter wrote: > On 2020/10/06 17:53, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > > Thanks for all the comments and improvements people proposed. > > > > Ondřej merged my MR last night, so it's now part of policy. > Great! > > Yay! Thanks! > > -Jonathan > > -- > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org > ⠈⠳⣄ Debian, the universal operating system. > >
Re: Newcomers project: DPMT/PAPT pristine-tar verification
Hi, Louis-Philippe Véronneau (2020-10-06): > I think the first step would be modifying vcswatcher to issue warnings for: > > * the absence of pristine-tar branches > * missing git tags > * repositories using 'master' instead of 'debian/master' as the main branch FWIW, so that nobody else spends time looking for this: it seems that the script that identifies problems and adds them to the DB is https://salsa.debian.org/qa/qa/-/blob/master/data/vcswatch/vcswatch. Here's the DB schema: https://salsa.debian.org/qa/qa/-/blob/master/data/vcswatch/vcswatch.sql Then https://salsa.debian.org/qa/qa/-/blob/master/cgi-bin/vcswatch generates the frontend HTML pages. Cheers!
