Hello, On Fri 26 Aug 2022 at 01:33AM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 16:26:21 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> On Thu 25 Aug 2022 at 08:50PM +01, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > clutter-1.0 is unmaintained upstream (#996690), but has too many
>> > reverse-dependencies to remove immediately. Please move all of its binary
>> > packages into oldlibs to make this more obvious.
>>
>> Done. Just for next time, please list the binary packages in the
>> request, as we have to feed the names of each of them to dak.
>
> Sorry, reportbug asked me for "either source of [sic] binary package"
> so I assumed either one was equally useful to the ftp team. Is there a
> syntax in which the ftp team would prefer to receive override requests
> for easiest review/copy/paste, so I can ask for reportbug to populate
> the bug report with that syntax, analogous to how it knows how to compose
> ben and wanna-build syntax for release team bugs?
That would be great. This is used for most requests:
dak override --done=NNNNNNN PACKAGE SECTION PRIORITY
And there is also dak control-overrides, where you feed it lines:
echo "PACKAGE PRIORITY SECTION\nPACKAGE2 PRIORITY2 SECTION2\n" \
| dak control-overrides -C
and then manually close the bug.
The latter is what I used for your case because I had to build up a list
of package names anyway. But the former is probably best for reportbug
generation, as more copy-pastable?
> (Perhaps the ideal thing would be if I could tell reportbug that I
> want to override "src:clutter-1.0 src:cogl", and it would do the
> appropriate apt queries to expand that into a list of binary packages
> ready for the ftp team's use?)
I think sometimes you might want to just change the source package
overrides though?
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
