Re: WNPP bug overview

[Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho]

On 2007T204222+0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
>  - 88221 --> O: cvs2html (260 days old)

This is wrong, since cvs2html is not orphaned.

> The following errors were encountered:
>  - 68290: orphaned package "malaga" does not exist in archive

It is a source package.

-- 
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%

Re: WNPP bug overview

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 05:32:22PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> My script can also automatically rename ITA's to O's and ITP's to RFP's.

> Orphaned packages are to be removed after:
>  - 300 days (main, no RC bugs)
>  -  50 days (contrib, no RC bugs)
>  -  25 days (non-free, no RC bugs)
>  - 150 days (main, one or more RC bugs)
>  -  25 days (contrib, one or more RC bugs)
>  -  10 days (non-free, one or more RC bugs)
> ITA's will be renamed to O's after 100 days

RFA, YM? Not sure this is appropriate.

> ITP's will be renamed to RFP's after 100 days

Sounds good. They'll also be dropped to wishlist, presumably? Three
months seems kind of long to upload an ITP-ed package (says someone who
spent over a year between submitting an ITP and uploading it...), maybe
that window should be shortened.

Might it be worth setting O: bugs to be severity "important" to make it
a bit easier to spot them?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
  see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt


pgpdZOvlVcjXi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: WNPP bug overview

[Bas Zoetekouw]

Hi Anthony!

You wrote:

> > ITA's will be renamed to O's after 100 days
> 
> RFA, YM? Not sure this is appropriate.

Yeah, in the lastest version ITA's will be renamed to RFA's if the
previous state was RFA, and to O otherwise.

> > ITP's will be renamed to RFP's after 100 days
> 
> Sounds good. They'll also be dropped to wishlist, presumably? Three

Aren't ITP's supposed to be wishlist, too? Well, doesn't really matter
of course, setting the severity explicitly won't be a problem.

> months seems kind of long to upload an ITP-ed package (says someone who
> spent over a year between submitting an ITP and uploading it...), maybe
> that window should be shortened.

You might be right. We shouldn't make it too short though. What about
6-8 weeks?
 
> Might it be worth setting O: bugs to be severity "important" to make it
> a bit easier to spot them?

Well, they are already sorted at the wnpp page...

BTW: here's the output of the lastest, debugged, script:

WNPP bug overview for Nov 18, 2001
===

There are 809 WNPP bugs in the BTS, of which
 - 52 are RFA's (packages in need of adoption) [2 contrib, 3 non-free]
 - 91 are O's (orphaned packages) [6 contrib, 6 non-free]
 - 83 are ITA's (packages being adopted) [3 contrib, 14 non-free]
 - 101 are RFP's (requested packages)
 - 476 are ITP's (packages being worked on)
 - 6 are errors (see below)

In the past week 51 wnpp bugs have been filed:
 - 7 RFA's
 - 8 O's
 - 2 ITA's
 - 2 RFP's
 - 30 ITP's
 - 2 unknowns (see errors below)

The following packages are up for removal from the archive[1]:
 - O: yc-el, 401 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: python-gendoc, 398 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: xpuzzles, 707 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: ucbmpeg, 27 days, non-free, 0 RC bugs
 - O: queue, 344 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: saml, 676 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: mmorph, 537 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: qub, 261 days, main, 1 RC bug
 - O: malaga, 537 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: mcvert, 162 days, non-free, 0 RC bugs
 - O: ilu, 266 days, contrib, 0 RC bugs
 - O: seaview, 162 days, contrib, 0 RC bugs
 - O: treetool, 162 days, non-free, 0 RC bugs
 - O: xtoolplaces, 111 days, non-free, 0 RC bugs
 - O: psptools, 469 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: ines, 218 days, non-free, 0 RC bugs
 - O: youbin, 330 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: kicq, 249 days, main, 1 RC bug
 - O: python-gendoc, 418 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: swi-prolog, 429 days, main, 2 RC bugs
 - O: mserver, 322 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: zed, 322 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: distributed-net-pproxy, 215 days, non-free, 0 RC bugs
 - O: circlepack, 676 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: dstooltk, 676 days, main, 0 RC bugs
 - O: dstooltk-doc, 676 days, main, 0 RC bugs

The following ITA's will be renamed to O's or RFA's[2]:
 - 68134 --> RFA: auto-pgp (1084 days old)
 - 68637 --> O: vchkpw (469 days old)
 - 68638 --> O: dot-forward (469 days old)
 - 68639 --> O: fastforward (469 days old)
 - 71576 --> O: tclx8.0.4 (431 days old)
 - 71915 --> O: mgdiff (426 days old)
 - 76207 --> RFA: libv1.25 (379 days old)
 - 77740 --> O: vchkpw (360 days old)
 - 77741 --> O: dot-forward (360 days old)
 - 77742 --> O: fastforward (360 days old)
 - 82446 --> O: xcolorsel (306 days old)
 - 86242 --> RFA: upsd (274 days old)
 - 86874 --> O: libnet (269 days old)
 - 87150 --> O: cccd (268 days old)
 - 88221 --> RFA: cvs2html (261 days old)
 - 88244 --> O: langdrill (261 days old)
 - 88502 --> RFA: manpages-fi (258 days old)
 - 88986 --> O: chpp (254 days old)
 - 89332 --> RFA: libax25 (251 days old)
 - 90312 --> RFA: sted (243 days old)
 - 90313 --> RFA: tya (243 days old)
 - 90361 --> O: dialdcost (243 days old)
 - 90924 --> O: wmf (239 days old)
 - 91943 --> O: asclock-gtk (235 days old)
 - 92240 --> O: bnc (232 days old)
 - 92447 --> RFA: siag (230 days old)
 - 92800 --> O: treetool (228 days old)
 - 93464 --> O: cooledit (222 days old)
 - 93465 --> O: cooledit (222 days old)
 - 93466 --> O: cooledit (222 days old)
 - 93467 --> O: cooledit (222 days old)
 - 93468 --> O: cooledit (222 days old)
 - 93469 --> O: cooledit (222 days old)
 - 93561 --> RFA: bf-utf (221 days old)
 - 93864 --> O: metrics (218 days old)
 - 93867 --> O: asp (218 days old)
 - 93965 --> O: barracuda (218 days old)
 - 96324 --> O: manpages-fi (197 days old)
 - 98666 --> O: bf-utf (177 days old)
 - 100208 --> O: bioperl (162 days old)
 - 100216 --> O: dbf2sql (162 days old)
 - 100221 --> O: fastlink (162 days old)
 - 100228 --> O: grandfatherclock (162 days old)
 - 100230 --> O: grunch (162 days old)
 - 100252 --> O: powershell (162 days old)
 - 100259 --> O: saydate (162 days old)
 - 100702 --> O: newsclipper (158 days old)
 - 103406 --> O: gap (137 days old)
 - 104197 --> O: kannel (130 days old)
 - 106271 --> O: cursel (118 days old)
 - 106272 --> O: ipmenu (118 days old)
 - 107242 --> O: gsn-curses (110 days old)
 - 107243 --> O: gsn-jigsaw (110 days old)
 - 107244 --> O: gumshoe (110 days old)
 - 107245 --> O: so-far (110 days old)
 - 107246 --> O: weather (1

Re: WNPP bug overview

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 03:53:03PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Aren't ITP's supposed to be wishlist, too? 

Ah, sorry, I was getting ITA and ITP confused.

It'd be nice if there was some reasonable way for wnpp's "bugs" to be
reduced regularly. From what I can see, there are three sorts of entry
that're non-wishlist bugs: O, RFA and ITA. It looks like ITA and O will
be regularly handled this way, which just leaves RFA. Hmm. Should RFA
really be a wishlist bug?

Possibly ITP's should also be severity normal (matching ITA), and
automatically dropped back to RFP's regularly?

Would that make sense?

> > months seems kind of long to upload an ITP-ed package (says someone who
> > spent over a year between submitting an ITP and uploading it...), maybe
> > that window should be shortened.
> You might be right. We shouldn't make it too short though. What about
> 6-8 weeks?

Sounds reasonable to me, fwiw.

> The following ITP's will be renamed to RFP's[3]:
>  - 68132: NIST's POSIX validation suite (1638 days old)
>  - 68232: oobr (1638 days old)
>  - 68243: Linux phone (1638 days old)
>  - 68245: MuPAD (1638 days old)
>  - 68256: TinyMUSH (1638 days old)

Heh.

You might want to consider a 730 (or even 1460) day limit for RFP's.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 "Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
   C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal with deconstructionist humor. Code Blue."
-- Mike Hoye,
  see http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/armadillos.txt

Re: WNPP bug overview

[Martin Schulze]

Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi guys!
> 
> I've written a script which generates overviews of the wnpp BTS entry.
> An example of a report in included below.  These reports should enable
> us to clean out en keep healthy the wnpp bug entry. 
> If no one object, I am going to send weekly reports to debian-devel.

The debian-devel-announce list may be more suited, with a Mail-Followup-To
set to debian-devel.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
It's time to close the windows.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Re: WNPP bug overview

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008 18:21]:
> The debian-devel-announce list may be more suited, with a
> Mail-Followup-To set to debian-devel.

Perhaps it should be integrated with the main wnpp report.  Yet
another weekly report to d-d-announce is probably not a good idea;
I doubt many people still read the weekly wnpp and bugtrack postings.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#120123: kview takes very long to show images

[Robert Voigt]

Package: kview
Version: 2.2.1.0-2.1

When I view several JPEG images (2048x1536 pixels, 1 MB), like a slide show, 
it takes 8 seconds from when I click "next image" before it actually shows 
the next image. This is not acceptable. With kview 2.1.1 it was only 3 
seconds.
Thank you

Re: WNPP bug overview

[Colin Watson]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 09:21:59PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008 18:21]:
> > The debian-devel-announce list may be more suited, with a
> > Mail-Followup-To set to debian-devel.
> 
> Perhaps it should be integrated with the main wnpp report.  Yet
> another weekly report to d-d-announce is probably not a good idea;
> I doubt many people still read the weekly wnpp and bugtrack postings.

Also, if it does need to be separate, I think a monthly posting would do
well enough.

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]