Re: BTS and qa.debian.org strangeness
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 11:35 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: Dear all, is the BTS and QA page undergoing some changes? I am asking because some things behave strange: * bug 670494 filed against ptex-bin, which is currently maintained by debian-tex-maint mailing list, but the bug report was sent (long after take over) to the old maintainer, so we missed it * bug 672491 same case with old texpower maintainer Looks like a problem of confusion between binary and source package names. Yes, you maintain that binary package now, but not the source package of the same name. * package.qa.debian.org page is outdated and lists old versions as currently included The ptex-bin source package is still present in unstable on debian-ports. Ben. Are these things that are known and worked on, or should I open bug reports against bts.debian.org (I didn't find the above things mentioned by now) THanks a lot and all the best -- Ben Hutchings The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: BTS and qa.debian.org strangeness
Hi Ben,
thanks for the answers, but ...
On Mo, 14 Mai 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
* bug 670494 filed against ptex-bin, which is currently maintained
by debian-tex-maint mailing list, but the bug report was sent
(long after take over) to the old maintainer, so we missed it
* bug 672491 same case with old texpower maintainer
Looks like a problem of confusion between binary and source package
names. Yes, you maintain that binary package now, but not the source
package of the same name.
Right, but a bug reported against the bin package should be sent to
the debian-tex-maint list.
* package.qa.debian.org page is outdated and lists old versions
as currently included
The ptex-bin source package is still present in unstable on
debian-ports.
No, I mean the versions of texlive-* in unstable:
I see on the QA package:
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=prein...@debian.org
texlive-doc/extra/lang/base 2011.20120424-1
but an
apt-cache texlive-base
shows me:
texlive-base:
Installed: 2011.20120511-1
Candidate: 2011.20120511-1
Version table:
*** 2011.20120511-1 0
499 file:/src/TeX/debian/people/TeX/ unstable/ Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
2011.20120509-1 0
499 http://ftp.nara.wide.ad.jp/debian/ sid/main amd64 Packages
2011.20120511-1 is my test version here
But 2011.20120509-1 is in the archive, definitely, but the QA pages still
lists 2011.20120424-1.
And this since 1 week or so since 20120509.
So the QA pages are borked at the moment.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
MELTON CONSTABLE (n.)
A patent anti-wrinkle cream which policemen wear to keep themselves
looking young.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120514092645.gc21...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
Re: BTS and qa.debian.org strangeness
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 18:26 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: Hi Ben, thanks for the answers, but ... On Mo, 14 Mai 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote: * bug 670494 filed against ptex-bin, which is currently maintained by debian-tex-maint mailing list, but the bug report was sent (long after take over) to the old maintainer, so we missed it * bug 672491 same case with old texpower maintainer Looks like a problem of confusion between binary and source package names. Yes, you maintain that binary package now, but not the source package of the same name. Right, but a bug reported against the bin package should be sent to the debian-tex-maint list. Yes. Talk to ow...@bugs.debian.org. * package.qa.debian.org page is outdated and lists old versions as currently included The ptex-bin source package is still present in unstable on debian-ports. No, I mean the versions of texlive-* in unstable: I see on the QA package: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=prein...@debian.org At the bottom of that page: Updated: general information: Tue May 8 23:16:52 UTC 2012, projectb: Mon May 14 09:30:12 UTC 2012, bugs: Mon May 14 09:20:15 UTC 2012. Time needed to generate page: 0.07s so some update seems to have stopped running. texlive-doc/extra/lang/base 2011.20120424-1 but an apt-cache texlive-base shows me: texlive-base: Installed: 2011.20120511-1 Candidate: 2011.20120511-1 Version table: *** 2011.20120511-1 0 499 file:/src/TeX/debian/people/TeX/ unstable/ Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 2011.20120509-1 0 499 http://ftp.nara.wide.ad.jp/debian/ sid/main amd64 Packages 2011.20120511-1 is my test version here But 2011.20120509-1 is in the archive, definitely, but the QA pages still lists 2011.20120424-1. And this since 1 week or so since 20120509. So the QA pages are borked at the moment. The PTS has this right; only the developer summary doesn't. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: BTS and qa.debian.org strangeness
Dear BTS masters,
it seems that recently some problems have been introduced in the BTS.
The following email exchange explains the two independent problems
(one being bug reports sent to the wrong adress, one being that the
dev pages are not updated).
On Mo, 14 Mai 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 18:26 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi Ben,
thanks for the answers, but ...
On Mo, 14 Mai 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote:
* bug 670494 filed against ptex-bin, which is currently maintained
by debian-tex-maint mailing list, but the bug report was sent
(long after take over) to the old maintainer, so we missed it
* bug 672491 same case with old texpower maintainer
Looks like a problem of confusion between binary and source package
names. Yes, you maintain that binary package now, but not the source
package of the same name.
Right, but a bug reported against the bin package should be sent to
the debian-tex-maint list.
Yes. Talk to ow...@bugs.debian.org.
* package.qa.debian.org page is outdated and lists old versions
as currently included
The ptex-bin source package is still present in unstable on
debian-ports.
No, I mean the versions of texlive-* in unstable:
I see on the QA package:
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=prein...@debian.org
At the bottom of that page:
Updated: general information: Tue May 8 23:16:52 UTC 2012, projectb: Mon May
14 09:30:12 UTC 2012, bugs: Mon May 14 09:20:15 UTC 2012. Time needed to
generate page: 0.07s
so some update seems to have stopped running.
texlive-doc/extra/lang/base 2011.20120424-1
but an
apt-cache texlive-base
shows me:
texlive-base:
Installed: 2011.20120511-1
Candidate: 2011.20120511-1
Version table:
*** 2011.20120511-1 0
499 file:/src/TeX/debian/people/TeX/ unstable/ Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
2011.20120509-1 0
499 http://ftp.nara.wide.ad.jp/debian/ sid/main amd64 Packages
2011.20120511-1 is my test version here
But 2011.20120509-1 is in the archive, definitely, but the QA pages still
lists 2011.20120424-1.
And this since 1 week or so since 20120509.
So the QA pages are borked at the moment.
The PTS has this right; only the developer summary doesn't.
All the best
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
EPWORTH (n.)
The precise value of the usefulness of epping (q.v.) it is a
little-known fact than an earlier draft of the final line of the film
Gone with the Wind had Clark Gable saying 'Frankly my dear, i don't
give an epworth', the line being eventually changed on the grounds
that it might not be understood in Cleveland.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120514231245.gl1...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
