Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
Hi Ansgar, On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 08:32:11AM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > I believe bugs should always be assigned to source packages as source > packages are really the unit we use to keep track of packages. Since the thread seems largly in favour of this, let me strongly disagree. I extensively use the distinction between source and binary packages and loosing it would be making my work very much harder. The ftbfs tag specifically relies on this and so do the cross build user tags. If some tool (say debhelper, because it happens every so often) breaks building a package, then that bug must be filed against the debhelper binary package and not against the debhelper source package. Doing otherwise would imply that debhelper were failing to build, which is not the case. The packages that do fail to build are the affected source packages. If on the other hand, debhelper were failing to build itself, the bug should be assigned to the debhelper source package. I do fix up wrong assignments every so often. If you want to get rid of the distinction, please offer an alternate way to quickly tell which packages are known to ftbfs. The arguments brought forward for this change seem very unconvincing to me: 1. Renamed binary packages. Source packages do get renamed as well and this is equally painful. 2. Confusion for users. The BTS is difficult for new users in many ways, but I've rarely seen users struggle with pinpointing the correct package. Instead they tend to just file with "some" package and that is wrong every now and then. It is easy to fix up and we only have to do that anyway if the bug is meant to be long-lived or affects stable. More often than not, such reassignments cross source package boundaries. 3. Maintainers missing bugs. The source package view includes all bugs filed against all binary packages and the source package. You won't miss any bugs if you always use that view. 4. Question of what should be filed with binary packages. Guillem already said that build/licensing issues should end up with the source package. Binary package bugs include crashes and wrong runtime behaviour. 5. Non-alternative usertags: usertags are insufficient as the crucial part is affected packages and this is not reasonably expressible with usertags. We'd need "useraffects" first. Please keep in mind that a lot of QA in Debian currently relies on quickly getting a relatively accurate view of which packages are supposed to be buildable. Until there is an alternative solution: Yes, please do distinguish between source and binary packages. At least for long-lived bugs. Helmut
Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
On 2019-10-27, Ansgar wrote: > We have usertags and other mechanisms that allow grouping bugs in > maintainer-defined ways. This is also used by pseudo-packages where we > don't have "binaries" to group bug reports by. But that moves the "default" work, where users is right at least more than 50% of the time, to pure developer work. /Sune
Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
Sune Vuorela writes: > On 2019-10-23, Ansgar wrote: >> So I'm wondering if we should start just filing all bug reports against >> source packages? Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use >> `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later. > > Have you ever maintained source packages where a source produced many > different binaries? I know that even maintainers are confused by Debian's BTS and sometimes don't notice bugs not filed against the "main" package as you would have to visit other pages to notice them. And bugs reports get "lost" when packages get reorganized (renamed, merged, split in different ways). I've seen that happen quite often. > I'm not sure the libreoffice maintainer, nor bug reporters, would > appreciate this. I as a bug reporter would certainly appreciate not having to look into all packages anyway as the bug might already be reported against a different binary. > Back when all the kdepim packages (mail, nntp, rss, calendar, contacts, > ...) were one source, I'm sure dealing with them would have been a > nightmare. We have usertags and other mechanisms that allow grouping bugs in maintainer-defined ways. This is also used by pseudo-packages where we don't have "binaries" to group bug reports by. For packages with too many bug reports, Debian's bug tracker doesn't work already (requests time out when too many bugs exist). Ansgar
Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
Guillem Jover writes: > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 08:32:11 +0200, Ansgar wrote: >> the thread about naming (source) packages reminded me of an other thing: >> Debian's bug tracking system currently (mostly) tracks bugs against >> binary packages and (less often) against source packages. > >> It gets confused if a source & binary package with the same name, but >> otherwise unrelated exist; or when the same binary is built from >> different sources on different architectures; > > I think this is a bogus practice that dak or ftp-masters should > outright reject on NEW processing. The second case might have been > valid in the past, but I don't think it is anymore since we have > versioned provides. I consider these to be bogus because I don't > think we can properly tell the infra which would be which w/o some > kind of manual intervention. It's bogus practice to confuse source & binary package namespaces which too many places in our infrastructure do (including the BTS). >> or when binary and source versions don't match (version tracking really >> should use source versions). > > debbugs at least has the apparent support for source and binary > versions at least at filing time, where you can do: > > Package: binary > Version: version-binary > > or > > Source: source > Source-Version: version-source > > if that does not really do what it's supposed to do, or other parts > get confused, I'd say this is a bug in debbugs that should ideally > be fixed. Trying to implement version tracking for binary versions is so complex and provides so little benefit (IMHO) that it's not worth trying to do so... Please keep in mind that there is no historic version information for binary versions (unlike d/changelog for source history) and that source pcakages can build binary packages with arbitrary versions, i.e. you cannot assume anything about relationship between source and binary versions. Debian's infrastructure also only uses source versions to close bugs... >> In addition there are issues when binary packages get >> renamed (e.g. when libfoo1 gets dropped in favor of libfoo2). > > This is indeed a valid point, and it would be nice to get support to > handle this in an easier way. Say a debbugs command to mass reassign, > or some way to designate the new package as a successor of the old > one, so that the infra could do the reassignment itself, or similar. Why more complicated solutions? >> I believe bugs should always be assigned to source packages as source >> packages are really the unit we use to keep track of packages. > > In some contexts that might be true, but for bug tracking and triaging > just using the source package implies a massive loss of relevant data > and grouping. :/ You can still use other grouping mechanisms (usertags). Binary package names and versions should probably also still be included in the bug report, just as we do for other useful information such as dependencies. >> So I'm wondering if we should start just filing all bug reports against >> source packages? Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use >> `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later. > > I actually find it slightly annoying when getting bug reports relevant > only to a binary package filed against the source package, as that's > something else I need to fix. > > Personally I only ever file against source packages, when the bug is > relevant to the actual source package, say f.ex. the packaging bits or > the upstream build system, something in the actual source, say some > licensing issues, etc. Which bugs don't fall into this category? Not being relevant to all of the packaging bits, build system, actual source, and licensing issues seems to leave very few things open that would not be filed against source packages according to your list. Ansgar
Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:32 PM Ansgar wrote: > It gets confused if a source & binary package with the same name, but > otherwise unrelated exist; or when the same binary is built from > different sources on different architectures; or when binary and source > versions don't match (version tracking really should use source > versions). In addition there are issues when binary packages get > renamed (e.g. when libfoo1 gets dropped in favor of libfoo2). These seem like deficiencies in debbugs that should get solved by adding fixes and features there and in reportbug. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
On 10/23/19 11:53 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > Fully agreed. It's also hard for users to pinpoint the correct binary > package and they tend to get stale with changes to binary names anyway > (soname changes to libs etc.) I think its easier for users to find the binary package name, as the package is being installed and the user might even to remember that they've installed the package. Or if there is a segfault in libfoo123, I think the first idea would be to report a bug against libfoo123 and not against foo-bar-fuzz, the source of libfoo. So I think at the end reportbug just needs to do the right thing -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
Hi! On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 08:32:11 +0200, Ansgar wrote: > the thread about naming (source) packages reminded me of an other thing: > Debian's bug tracking system currently (mostly) tracks bugs against > binary packages and (less often) against source packages. > It gets confused if a source & binary package with the same name, but > otherwise unrelated exist; or when the same binary is built from > different sources on different architectures; I think this is a bogus practice that dak or ftp-masters should outright reject on NEW processing. The second case might have been valid in the past, but I don't think it is anymore since we have versioned provides. I consider these to be bogus because I don't think we can properly tell the infra which would be which w/o some kind of manual intervention. I've personally filed bugs on packages that have used this kind of cross-naming when I've noticed them, and will keep doing that if they are not banned from the root. > or when binary and source versions don't match (version tracking really > should use source versions). debbugs at least has the apparent support for source and binary versions at least at filing time, where you can do: Package: binary Version: version-binary or Source: source Source-Version: version-source if that does not really do what it's supposed to do, or other parts get confused, I'd say this is a bug in debbugs that should ideally be fixed. > In addition there are issues when binary packages get > renamed (e.g. when libfoo1 gets dropped in favor of libfoo2). This is indeed a valid point, and it would be nice to get support to handle this in an easier way. Say a debbugs command to mass reassign, or some way to designate the new package as a successor of the old one, so that the infra could do the reassignment itself, or similar. > I believe bugs should always be assigned to source packages as source > packages are really the unit we use to keep track of packages. In some contexts that might be true, but for bug tracking and triaging just using the source package implies a massive loss of relevant data and grouping. :/ > So I'm wondering if we should start just filing all bug reports against > source packages? Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use > `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later. I actually find it slightly annoying when getting bug reports relevant only to a binary package filed against the source package, as that's something else I need to fix. Personally I only ever file against source packages, when the bug is relevant to the actual source package, say f.ex. the packaging bits or the upstream build system, something in the actual source, say some licensing issues, etc. So this proposal looks like an annoying regression to me. Thanks, Guillem
Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
On 2019-10-23, Ansgar wrote: > So I'm wondering if we should start just filing all bug reports against > source packages? Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use > `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later. Have you ever maintained source packages where a source produced many different binaries? I'm not sure the libreoffice maintainer, nor bug reporters, would appreciate this. Back when all the kdepim packages (mail, nntp, rss, calendar, contacts, ...) were one source, I'm sure dealing with them would have been a nightmare. /Sune
Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
On Mi, 23 oct 19, 08:32:11, Ansgar wrote: > > Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use > `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later. Beware of #721793, though I'm guessing the reportbug maintainer is aware that 'Source: ' doesn't do what one might expect ;) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
Ansgar schrieb: > the thread about naming (source) packages reminded me of an other thing: > Debian's bug tracking system currently (mostly) tracks bugs against > binary packages and (less often) against source packages. > > It gets confused if a source & binary package with the same name, but > otherwise unrelated exist; or when the same binary is built from > different sources on different architectures; or when binary and source > versions don't match (version tracking really should use source > versions). In addition there are issues when binary packages get > renamed (e.g. when libfoo1 gets dropped in favor of libfoo2). > > I believe bugs should always be assigned to source packages as source > packages are really the unit we use to keep track of packages. Fully agreed. It's also hard for users to pinpoint the correct binary package and they tend to get stale with changes to binary names anyway (soname changes to libs etc.) Cheers, Moritz
Re: +1 (Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?)
Quoting Gianfranco Costamagna (2019-10-24 12:31:51) > I agree. > > With python2 being removed, we will have a lot of > "src:python-foo" providing only a "bin:python3-foo" > so this confusion will be even more a problem... > (will we ever rename also source packages now that python2 is going to be > removed?) Seems fine to me that projects targeting python library namespaces use "python-" prefix for source packages, indicating the _family_ of Pythonic namespaces. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: +1 (Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?)
I agree. With python2 being removed, we will have a lot of "src:python-foo" providing only a "bin:python3-foo" so this confusion will be even more a problem... (will we ever rename also source packages now that python2 is going to be removed?) Gianfranco
+1 (Re: should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?)
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 08:32:11AM +0200, Ansgar wrote: > So I'm wondering if we should start just filing all bug reports against > source packages? Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use > `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later. I agree we should. -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
should all bug reports be filed against /source/ packages?
Hi, the thread about naming (source) packages reminded me of an other thing: Debian's bug tracking system currently (mostly) tracks bugs against binary packages and (less often) against source packages. It gets confused if a source & binary package with the same name, but otherwise unrelated exist; or when the same binary is built from different sources on different architectures; or when binary and source versions don't match (version tracking really should use source versions). In addition there are issues when binary packages get renamed (e.g. when libfoo1 gets dropped in favor of libfoo2). I believe bugs should always be assigned to source packages as source packages are really the unit we use to keep track of packages. So I'm wondering if we should start just filing all bug reports against source packages? Reportbug could probably be easily changed to use `Source: ...` instead of `Package: ...`; more places could follow later. Ansgar
