Re: Question concerning watch file checks in PTS

2013-01-29 Thread Christoph Berg 
Re: Bart Martens 2013-01-28 <20130128212932.gb3...@master.debian.org>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:06:32PM +0100, Simon Kainz wrote:
> > Host apgdiff.startnet.biz also gives the same result. Question is:
> > Why do you query apgdiff.startnet.biz? When i apt-get source the
> > package, my watch files looks like this:
> > skainz@zidd-104:~/tmp/apgdiff-1.4/debian$ cat watch
> > version=3
> > http://sf.net/apgdiff/apgdiff-(.+)-src.zip
> > skainz@zidd-104:~/tmp/apgdiff-1.4/debian$
> > So maybe i get the wrong watchfile?
> 
> The watch file in apgdiff 2.3-1 uses sf.net and the one in apgdiff 2.4-1 uses
> apgdiff.startnet.biz.  So you should ask your question to the package
> maintainer.  I'm sure he must have had a good reason at the time.

Maintainer here. The upstream location was moving from sf.net to
startnet.biz, but the latter looks dead at the moment. I'll wait a bit
to see if it comes back and then switch to whatever has the latest
version.

The upstream vcs apparently also moved, it's a bit of a mess at the
moment...

Christoph
-- 
c...@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#699268: UDD: should learn about Extra-Source-Only: yes and ignore those packages in rmadison

2013-01-29 Thread Lucas Nussbaum 
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: udd

(filing as a bug)

- Forwarded message from Ansgar Burchardt  -

From: Ansgar Burchardt 
To: debian-qa@lists.debian.org, debian-...@lists.debian.org
CC: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:17:56 +0100
Subject: additional entries in Sources index (may affect UDD, PTS, packages.d.o)
X-Mailing-List:  archive/latest/18840
List-Id: 

Hi,

I plan to add source packages that are only referenced via Built-Using
to the Sources indices[1] so we include them on source CD images and
mirrors maintained with debmirror.

It might be useful to ignore these new packages and not show them on the
PTS, in UDD (rmadison) or packages.d.o. Most of them should be older
versions of source packages in a given suite, but it can also happen
that newer versions or additional packages show up.

The additional entries can be identified by a "Extra-Source-Only: yes"
field in the Sources index.

Ansgar

  [1] 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50f01104.4040...@debian.org



- End forwarded message -


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130129155107.gc6...@xanadu.blop.info

Bug#695508: marked as done (udd: bugs.cgi - bugs filed against multiple packages is not associated with a source)

2013-01-29 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:56:03 +0100
with message-id <20130129155603.ga8...@xanadu.blop.info>
and subject line Re: Bug#695508: udd: bugs.cgi - bugs filed against multiple 
packages is not associated with a source
has caused the Debian Bug report #695508,
regarding udd: bugs.cgi - bugs filed against multiple packages is not 
associated with a source
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
695508: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=695508
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: udd

The bug #694368 is filed against libfuzzy2, libfuzzy-dev (src:
ssdeep).  At least in the view [1], this means that the "package"
column gets the PTS link wrong.  It links to p.qa.d.o/libfuzzy2 and
p.qa.d.o/libfuzzy-dev (respectively), but it should have linked to
p.qa.d.o/ssdeep in both cases.  This is not a huge problem as the
PTS fixes this with a redirect, but ...

I suspect also causes bugs.cgi not discovering the unblock hint for
ssdeep.  On a related note; as ssdeep is unblocked the package will
problably migrate in a week (causing the example disappear from the
view).  Let me know if I should find more information before then.

~Niels

[1] 
http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=wheezy_not_sid&merged=ign&fnewerval=7&rc=1&sortby=id&sorto=asc&chints=1&ctags=1&cdeferred=1&crttags=1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 05/01/13 at 23:53 +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
> 
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:05:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I could try to create a patch, but I don't know where to get the data to 
> > > do
> > > the test, so I'll leave that to someone else.
> 
> > If you could write a basic patch, I could try to test it myself.
> > 
> > Alternatively, you could get the BTS data using rsync:
> > $ rsync bugs-mirror.debian.org::
> > bts-spool-db[bugs-mirror.debian.org] active bug spool
> > bts-spool-archive   [bugs-mirror.debian.org] archived bug spool
> > bts-spool-index [bugs-mirror.debian.org] bug index files
> > bts-versions[bugs-mirror.debian.org] bts package version information
> > But I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.
> 
> To run the bugs import, a number of files from /srv/bugs.debian.org/etc are
> also needed. I don't know if they are available somewhere.
> 
> Most of the necessary files can be empty or generated from other data, so I
> was able to do some basic testing, and I created a patch (attached) that
> should fix the import part of this bug.

Hi,

I've just applied your patch. Thanks!

Lucas--- End Message ---

Bug#698430: marked as done (UDD: rcbugs.cgi shows #639407 as affecting Wheezy, but it is fixed+archived)

2013-01-29 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:48:32 +0100
with message-id <20130129154832.gb6...@xanadu.blop.info>
and subject line Re: Bug#698430: UDD: rcbugs.cgi shows #639407 as affecting 
Wheezy, but it is fixed+archived
has caused the Debian Bug report #698430,
regarding UDD: rcbugs.cgi shows #639407 as affecting Wheezy, but it is 
fixed+archived
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
698430: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698430
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: udd

Using a filtered query of RC bugs affecting Wheezy (but not sid and
without an unblock hint)[1], I noticed #639407  being listed.  However,
according to the BTS #639407 is closed, fixed in 2.7.3-1 (Wheezy has
2.7.3-6) _and_ it is archived[2].

I am not sure how and why, but it appears to be the database itself
that is outdated/.  This bug is
also present in quantz.d.o's UDD instance (no pun intended).

 $ /usr/bin/psql -h localhost -p 5441 -U guest  udd
 udd=> SELECT id,source FROM public.bugs_rt_affects_testing WHERE id = 639407;
id   |  source
 +---
  639407 | python2.7
 (1 row)


~Niels

[1] 
http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=wheezy_not_sid&merged=ign&unblock-hint=ign&fnewerval=7&rc=1&sortby=id&sorto=asc&chints=1&ctags=1&cdeferred=1&crttags=1

[2] The latter suggesting that the bug has been fixed in testing for
over a month now.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 19/01/13 at 19:30 +, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Based on a diff of RC bug numbers according to UDD bugs.cgi vs. britney
> testing-nr [0] the surplus bugs are:
> 
> #639407 python2.7-dev [not marked as 'found' in any version; archived]
> #672677 src:broadcom-sta [marked fixed in wheezy+sid; archived]
> #677822 nut-server [marked fixed in wheezy+sid; archived]
> #682000 nut-client [marked fixed in wheezy+sid; archived]
> #684392 nut-server [marked fixed in wheezy+sid; archived]

Hi,

None of those bugs are listed as affecting wheezy currently.

> #677054 nut-client [marked fixed in wheezy+sid; archived]

This one is, but rightfully.

I suspect that testing-nr does not look at archived bugs. It's possible
that archived bugs start affecting wheezy again, e.g. when someone
messes up the package changelog and branches from an affected version.

I've re-done a diff between testing-nr and UDD, and did not find
anything wrong. So I'm closing the bug, but feel free to reopen if you
run into strange things again.

Lucas--- End Message ---

Bug#699017: marked as done (udd: RC bug view: "marked as done" vs experimental)

2013-01-29 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:36:10 +0100
with message-id <20130129153610.ga6...@xanadu.blop.info>
and subject line Re: Bug#699017: udd: RC bug view: "marked as done" vs 
experimental
has caused the Debian Bug report #699017,
regarding udd: RC bug view: "marked as done" vs experimental
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
699017: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699017
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: minor
User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: udd

The UDD bugs view uses "ignore marked as done" for some of its view.
Particularly, the "Bug squasher view".  I fear that "marked as done"
is a poor choice, because it filters out "fixed (only) in
experimental"[1].

If you believe that "fixed only in experimental" does not belong in
"Bug squasher view", then perhaps document that "fixed only in
experimental" (deliberately) ends up in "Cleaner view".

~Niels

[1]  These instead end up in the "Cleaner view" - jenkins (#696816 and
#697617) being a known example.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,

On 26/01/13 at 13:28 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Package: qa.debian.org
> Severity: minor
> User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: udd
> 
> The UDD bugs view uses "ignore marked as done" for some of its view.
> Particularly, the "Bug squasher view".  I fear that "marked as done"
> is a poor choice, because it filters out "fixed (only) in
> experimental"[1].
> 
> If you believe that "fixed only in experimental" does not belong in
> "Bug squasher view", then perhaps document that "fixed only in
> experimental" (deliberately) ends up in "Cleaner view".

Fixed in 4059959dad41776d45c33359a83cc9a418d78528, with the above
suggestion.

Lucas
 
> [1]  These instead end up in the "Cleaner view" - jenkins (#696816 and
> #697617) being a known example.--- End Message ---

Bug#687926: marked as done (UDD: http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi should allow filtering by the "help" tag)

2013-01-29 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:19:59 +0100
with message-id <20130129161959.ga10...@xanadu.blop.info>
and subject line Re: Bug#687926: UDD: http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi should 
allow filtering by the "help" tag
has caused the Debian Bug report #687926,
regarding UDD: http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi should allow filtering by the 
"help" tag
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
687926: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=687926
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: wishlist

Please add a new filter: "tagged help"


-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers lucid-updates
  APT policy: (600, 'lucid-updates'), (600, 'lucid-security'), (600, 'lucid'), 
(400, 'lucid-backports')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.38-15-generic (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=pl_PL.utf8, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 17/09/12 at 09:21 +0100, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> Package: qa.debian.org
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> Please add a new filter: "tagged help"

Done in 91d6f4c03e1e99897a367126df145218153d1bc8

Lucas--- End Message ---

Bug#695508: udd: bugs.cgi - bugs filed against multiple packages is not associated with a source

2013-01-29 Thread Ivo De Decker 
Hi Lucas,

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:56:03PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I've just applied your patch. Thanks!

OK. Thanks.

The links to the PTS in the cgi also need to be changed. I commit a fix for
this. If someone can do a pull on the udd server, this bug can really be
closed.

Cheers,

Ivo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130129214925.ga10...@ugent.be

Bug#695508: udd: bugs.cgi - bugs filed against multiple packages is not associated with a source

2013-01-29 Thread Lucas Nussbaum 
On 29/01/13 at 22:49 +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Hi Lucas,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:56:03PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I've just applied your patch. Thanks!
> 
> OK. Thanks.
> 
> The links to the PTS in the cgi also need to be changed. I commit a fix for
> this. If someone can do a pull on the udd server, this bug can really be
> closed.

Done, thanks!

Lucas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130129222355.ga24...@xanadu.blop.info

Bug#695508: udd: bugs.cgi - bugs filed against multiple packages is not associated with a source

2013-01-29 Thread Ivo De Decker 
Hi,

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:23:55PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 29/01/13 at 22:49 +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> > Hi Lucas,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:56:03PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I've just applied your patch. Thanks!
> > 
> > OK. Thanks.
> > 
> > The links to the PTS in the cgi also need to be changed. I commit a fix for
> > this. If someone can do a pull on the udd server, this bug can really be
> > closed.
> 
> Done, thanks!

Unfortunately, the change seems to break bugs.cgi. It works fine on my test
system (sid), but it doesn't work on udd.debian.org. I committed a revert, so
if someone does a new pull, the cgi should at least work again.

Cheers,

Ivo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130129225749.ga10...@ugent.be

Bug#695508: udd: bugs.cgi - bugs filed against multiple packages is not associated with a source

2013-01-29 Thread Lucas Nussbaum 
On 29/01/13 at 23:57 +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:23:55PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 29/01/13 at 22:49 +0100, Ivo De Decker wrote:
> > > Hi Lucas,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:56:03PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > I've just applied your patch. Thanks!
> > > 
> > > OK. Thanks.
> > > 
> > > The links to the PTS in the cgi also need to be changed. I commit a fix 
> > > for
> > > this. If someone can do a pull on the udd server, this bug can really be
> > > closed.
> > 
> > Done, thanks!
> 
> Unfortunately, the change seems to break bugs.cgi. It works fine on my test
> system (sid), but it doesn't work on udd.debian.org. I committed a revert, so
> if someone does a new pull, the cgi should at least work again.

done ;)

Lucas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130129230837.ga27...@xanadu.blop.info

Bug#699268: UDD: should learn about Extra-Source-Only: yes and ignore those packages in rmadison

2013-01-29 Thread Stuart Prescott 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


Hi,

it's not obvious to me that UDD should be ignoring these packages or that 
rmadison should hide them. 

* UDD has always taken the view that it should represent in the database 
what is in the data source -- the sources table is the Source file on the 
mirror.

* these source packages are available for people to download from the 
mirror, so why shouldn't they be in UDD and why shouldn't rmadison list 
them?

$ rmadison -s sid alsa-utils
alsa-utils | 1.0.25-3 | sid | source
alsa-utils | 1.0.25-4 | sid | source, amd64, armel, armhf, i386, …

$ apt-get source alsa-utils=1.0.25-3
…
Get:1 http://http.debian.net/debian/ sid/main alsa-utils 1.0.25-3 (dsc)
…


Overall, I'm not sure that having them in rmadison or the sources table 
causes any problems, so I'm not sure why we would want to hide them there.

I would, however, like to add Extra-Source-Only to the gatherer's list of 
known fields so that it complains less about them.

cheers
Stuart

- -- 
Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/   stu...@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org
GPG fingerprintBE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlEIXrgACgkQn+i4zXHF0ainuACeIX9KUi0pwdwn7QbDq80tBh3T
KJkAn1jvg/2PSfymj9iJXQLm/2fi3Bdt
=RQFj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51085ec7.4a63b40a.0934.e...@mx.google.com