Your message dated Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:56:38 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line done
has caused the Debian Bug report #327801,
regarding [BUG] KATIE upload warnings - urgency field not parsed correctly
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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
327801: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=327801
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dak
Tags: patch
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:44:21AM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Hi, I hope this is the correct address to notify about this...
>
> According to policy manual "5.6.17 Urgency"
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Urgency
> it reads:
>
> This is a description of how important it is to upgrade to this
> version from previous ones. It consists of a single keyword
> usually taking one of the values low, medium or high (not
> case-sensitive) followed by an optional commentary (separated by a
> space) which is usually in parentheses. For example:
>
> Urgency: low (HIGH for users of diversions)
>
> The comment can be attached to explain the priority. My changelog read:
>
> jwm (0.23-3) unstable; urgency=medium (restore /usr/bin/x-window-manager)
>
> but the KATIE responded:
>
> Warning: medium (restore /usr/bin/x-window-manager) is not a valid
> urgency; it will be treated as low by testing.
>
> Accepted:
> ....
>
> Perhaps this "comment" feature is not included in the upload checker
> code. Is there a package where this bug could be filed?
Hm, I've never seen this comment feature being used before. Sounds potentially
useful as a place to argue an urgency setting.
For whether testing will ignore the urgency, I believe it will use the value
passed on by katie, so it's the same bug. Not sure about that though, someone
more familiar with britney will be able to say.
Bugs about katie are best filed to 'dak', as I'm doing now with this message.
Anyway, patch:
--- jennifer 2005-05-31 04:22:52.000000000 -0700
+++ jennifer 2005-09-12 02:57:23.508898169 -0700
@@ -892,6 +892,8 @@
if changes["architecture"].has_key("source"):
if not changes.has_key("urgency"):
changes["urgency"] = Cnf["Urgency::Default"];
+ # Urgency may be followed by space & comment (policy 5.6.17)
+ changes["urgency"] = changes["urgency"].split(" ")[0];
if changes["urgency"] not in Cnf.ValueList("Urgency::Valid"):
reject("%s is not a valid urgency; it will be treated as %s by
testing." % (changes["urgency"], Cnf["Urgency::Default"]), "Warning: ");
changes["urgency"] = Cnf["Urgency::Default"];
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[email protected] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
done, implemented
--
bye, Joerg
<holger> Ganneff: Im confident in your ability to create flamewars.
--- End Message ---
