Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
Scripsit Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, you misunderstand. Bastian means that if some binary packages are only built on some archs, not including the one the upload is taking place for, nobody will get an override disparity warning[1]. Is that even possible? The current unstable Sources file has no occurence of '[' in any Binary: line. Or is that not how such a situation is signalled? -- Henning Makholm Og når de får killinger siger de miav.
Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, you misunderstand. Bastian means that if some binary packages are only built on some archs, not including the one the upload is taking place for, nobody will get an override disparity warning[1]. Is that even possible? The current unstable Sources file has no occurence of '[' in any Binary: line. Or is that not how such a situation is signalled? That is not how such a situation is signalled, rather, upon building on some archs, some packages simply will not produce certain binary packages. In my opinion, it'd be very desireable to *have* it signalled via the Binary: header, such that it can be used much more reliable in detecting misbuilds. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:36:43 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias Klose wrote: Package: general override change are not announced to the package maintainers, _after_ a package is uploaded. I agree. That's a bug which should be fixed. A maintainer should know before uploading whether an upload will cause an override disparity. It is, however, probably possible to query that information from the archive automatically during package build. Maybe even a lintian check doing so is possible (but that would be a lintian check sending out web queries during checking, which is probably new behavior). I don't beleive this is true. I just got the following email from the archive: --- Subject: easyh10 override disparity There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): easyh10_1.0.0-1_alpha.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. easyh10_1.0.0-1_i386.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. easyh10_1.0.0-1_sparc.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. This is most probably an reaction to your upload of 2005-10-13 which nicely shows the issue that Matthias is complaining about. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
Em Qui, 2005-10-13 às 22:36 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg escreveu: Matthias Klose wrote: Package: general override change are not announced to the package maintainers, _after_ a package is uploaded. I don't beleive this is true. I just got the following email from the archive: [snip] What doko meant, if I understand this correctly, is that, if a package has already been uploaded when an ftpmaster modifies the overrides, the maintainer will not get to know about it until s/he uploads a new package and gets an override disparity warning message (the one you attached). It would be great, indeed, if the maintainer were notified when the change occurs, so the next release of the package would already have the appropriate information. See ya, -- Guilherme de S. Pastore (fatalerror) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 06:04:20AM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: What doko meant, if I understand this correctly, is that, if a package has already been uploaded when an ftpmaster modifies the overrides, the maintainer will not get to know about it until s/he uploads a new package and gets an override disparity warning message (the one you attached). And he get only warnings for binary packages he uploaded, not for the packages which are only built by the autobuilders. Bastian -- Life and death are seldom logical. But attaining a desired goal always is. -- McCoy and Spock, The Galileo Seven, stardate 2821.7 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 333844 dak Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers Bug reassigned from package `general' to `dak'. severity 333844 wishlist Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers Severity set to `wishlist'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
Em Sex, 2005-10-14 às 11:34 +0200, Bastian Blank escreveu: On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 06:04:20AM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: What doko meant, if I understand this correctly, is that, if a package has already been uploaded when an ftpmaster modifies the overrides, the maintainer will not get to know about it until s/he uploads a new package and gets an override disparity warning message (the one you attached). And he get only warnings for binary packages he uploaded, not for the packages which are only built by the autobuilders. Perhaps because the override check is all about Section and Priority, which are source package characterics, and because katie only performs the check on sourceful uploads? -- Guilherme de S. Pastore (fatalerror) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 01:55:30PM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: Em Sex, 2005-10-14 às 11:34 +0200, Bastian Blank escreveu: And he get only warnings for binary packages he uploaded, not for the packages which are only built by the autobuilders. Perhaps because the override check is all about Section and Priority, which are source package characterics, and because katie only performs the check on sourceful uploads? No, you misunderstand. Bastian means that if some binary packages are only built on some archs, not including the one the upload is taking place for, nobody will get an override disparity warning[1]. And he's correct, as override disparity warnings are only sent for sourceful uploads, and there is no disparity if you don't upload the binary package in question. Also, katie has overrides both for source packages and for binary packages. --Jeroen [1] This is an exception, the vast majority of all source packages do not differ what binary packages they produce based on the architecture -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
Em Sex, 2005-10-14 às 19:22 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar escreveu: On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 01:55:30PM -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: Em Sex, 2005-10-14 às 11:34 +0200, Bastian Blank escreveu: And he get only warnings for binary packages he uploaded, not for the packages which are only built by the autobuilders. Perhaps because the override check is all about Section and Priority, which are source package characterics, and because katie only performs the check on sourceful uploads? No, you misunderstand. Indeed, thanks for the help =) See ya, -- Guilherme de S. Pastore (fatalerror) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, you misunderstand. Bastian means that if some binary packages are only built on some archs, not including the one the upload is taking place for, nobody will get an override disparity warning[1]. And he's correct, as override disparity warnings are only sent for sourceful uploads, and there is no disparity if you don't upload the binary package in question. Ah yes, that's a problem. But really, why is the developer uploading packages that he doesn't even know whether they work, since after all, ex hypothesi, they cannot be built on the system from which he is doing the upload? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#333844: override changes are not announced to the package maintainers
Matthias Klose wrote: Package: general override change are not announced to the package maintainers, _after_ a package is uploaded. I don't beleive this is true. I just got the following email from the archive: --- Subject: easyh10 override disparity There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): easyh10_1.0.0-1_alpha.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. easyh10_1.0.0-1_i386.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. easyh10_1.0.0-1_sparc.deb: package says priority is optional, override says extra. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong please fix the package so that this disparity is fixed in the next upload. If you feel the override is incorrect then please reply to this mail and explain why. [NB: this is an automatically generated mail; if you replied to one like it before and have not received a response yet, please ignore this mail. Your reply needs to be processed by a human and will be in due course, but until then the installer will send these automated mails; sorry.] -- Debian distribution maintenance software (This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
