Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On 15/11/17 at 16:43 +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > Hello, > > my QA page or our blend's task page (like > https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio-ngs) regularly informs me about > updates that should be performed to packages I alone maintain or (more > likely) with the help of my blend. The

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"): > And in general I'd expect from a maintainer that packages are maintained > not worse than the QA-maintained orphaned packages - for the latter ones > "easy" incoming bugs are usually handled properly.

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

I took issue with Adrian's phrasing around "disgrace", and had intended to reply, but didn't. On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:20:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: I would much rather have a minimally maintained package, from Debian, in my stable release, than have to roll my own. This is particularly

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:36:59PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"): > > Sometimes I see bug reports in the BTS where it is evident that a user > > has spent hours or days on debugging an issue and writing a mar

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"): > Sometimes I see bug reports in the BTS where it is evident that a user > has spent hours or days on debugging an issue and writing a marvelous > bug report. I read the bug 10 years later with no other messag

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:20:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >... > I would much rather have a minimally maintained package, from Debian, > in my stable release, than have to roll my own. This is particularly > true if I don't know yet whether the thing is what I want. Trying > something out

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hi Bálint, On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 04:34:40AM +0100, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Hi Guido, > > 2017-11-24 12:48 GMT+01:00 Guido Günther : > > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote: > >> Hi, > >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:43:17PM +0100, Steffen Möller

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hi Guido, 2017-11-24 12:48 GMT+01:00 Guido Günther : > Hi, > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote: >> Hi, >> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:43:17PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > my QA page or our blend's task page (like >> >

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hi, On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 04:31:43PM +0100, Guido Günther wrote: > Hi, > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:43:17PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > > Hello, > > > > my QA page or our blend's task page (like > > https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio-ngs) regularly informs me about > > updates that

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Steffen Möller writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"): > On 18.11.17 01:12, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > But you are right, an external service is a safe bet as a first start that > we do not need to vote about - nor would I need to ask ;) However, > any such a

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Paul Gevers writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"): > On 17-11-17 20:35, Sean Whitton wrote: > > Why are such a people a disgrace? So long as they do not refuse the > > requests of people with more time on their hands to adopt the package, > > aren'

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hi Jeremy, On 18.11.17 01:12, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Steffen Möller > wrote: >> If the positive vibes I have felt are kept up then I propose the >> individuals running relevant services in/around Debian (ftpmasters, web, >> backports,

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Steffen Möller wrote: > If the positive vibes I have felt are kept up then I propose the > individuals running relevant services in/around Debian (ftpmasters, web, > backports, mentors, ...) determine what team then takes that summary to >

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Dear all, On 15.11.17 16:43, Steffen Möller wrote: > [question about how to realise auto-updated packages] > Thank you tons for all your nice and constructive ideas, experiences and comments. My (biased) impression is that there is a majority in favour of some automation to become an option for

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hello, On Fri, Nov 17 2017, Paul Gevers wrote: > On 17-11-17 20:35, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Why are such a people a disgrace? So long as they do not refuse the >> requests of people with more time on their hands to adopt the >> package, aren't they just doing what they can, which is strictly >>

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hi Sean, On 17-11-17 20:35, Sean Whitton wrote: > Why are such a people a disgrace? So long as they do not refuse the > requests of people with more time on their hands to adopt the package, > aren't they just doing what they can, which is strictly better than the > package receiving no work at

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hello Adrian, On Fri, Nov 17 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > We do have DDs who seem to consider "maintaining" their packages to > consist only of uploading the latest upstream versions and perhaps > look at RC bugs in their packages (sometimes not even that). IMHO > such people are a disgrace for

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:43:17PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > Hello, > > my QA page or our blend's task page (like > https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio-ngs) regularly informs me about > updates that should be performed to packages I alone maintain or (more > likely) with the help of my

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hi, On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:43:17PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > Hello, > > my QA page or our blend's task page (like > https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio-ngs) regularly informs me about > updates that should be performed to packages I alone maintain or (more > likely) with the help of

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 07:06:39PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 17:02:00 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:53:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Yes; and semver.org is a formalized system for version numbering stuff. > > > If upstream has

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:21:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Wow! Thank you for sharing details of this, Jeremy. indeed! thank you. > What's > particularly nice about this is that the upload stage is still manual, > which satisfies the kind of reasons brought up by Russ and I, but a big >

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hello, On Thu, Nov 16 2017, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Holger Levsen wrote: >> I've also heard plans (early 2017) that some people in Fedora wanted to start >> doing such things, but I dont think they have started by now, though I >> might be

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Le jeudi, 16 novembre 2017, 09.03:47 h CET Alexander Wirt a écrit : > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > Le mercredi, 15 novembre 2017, 16.43:17 h CET Steffen Möller a écrit : > > > I would really like to see updates performed in some automated fashion. > > > > Debian updates

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Ian Jackson wrote: > I think it would certainly be a minority of upstreams that we (Debian) > would want to trust so thoroughly. And ones that we have comprehensive testsuites & autopkgtests too … :) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org /

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"): > and as others have said: the packaging part should be automated, not > the uploading part. (which means, there should be maintainer review > inbetween.) I think part of this thread is exploring the circumsta

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Holger Levsen wrote: > I've also heard plans (early 2017) that some people in Fedora wanted to start > doing such things, but I dont think they have started by now, though I > might be wrong on that last bit. So, clearly, there are others

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 at 17:02:00 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:53:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Yes; and semver.org is a formalized system for version numbering stuff. > > If upstream has committed to it (and does not make mistakes), then the c > > versions in

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:53:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Yes; and semver.org is a formalized system for version numbering stuff. > If upstream has committed to it (and does not make mistakes), then the c > versions in the above example MUST (in the RFC definition of that word) > only

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:29:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"): > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:41:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > I think Steffen's point was that all the hideousness you are ta

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Andreas Tille writes: > I think Steffen's point was that all the hideousness you are talking > about was solved in version a.b.c of the software and if version > a.b.(c+1) builds and passes our test suite it will most probably not > have changed. Oh, yeah, to be clear, I don't

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?"): > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:41:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > I think Steffen's point was that all the hideousness you are talking > > about was solved in version a.b.c of the software and if ver

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:41:18PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:10:59AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > Distribution packages generated by upstream are usually horrible unless > > upstream is deeply involved in that distribution community. From the > > perspective

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:10:59AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Distribution packages generated by upstream are usually horrible unless > upstream is deeply involved in that distribution community. From the > perspective of an experienced packager for that distribution, they are > usually way

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le mercredi, 15 novembre 2017, 16.43:17 h CET Steffen Möller a écrit : > > I would really like to see updates performed in some automated fashion. > > Debian updates are in fact different steps: > * inclusion of upstream changes; > * packaging

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Le mercredi, 15 novembre 2017, 16.43:17 h CET Steffen Möller a écrit : > I would really like to see updates performed in some automated fashion. Debian updates are in fact different steps: * inclusion of upstream changes; * packaging updates; * .changes signing with a key in the Debian keyring; *

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel writes: > Sean Whitton wrote: >> If an upstream author knows their code will go straight into an active >> Debian suite when they push a git tag to GitHub, the trust dynamic is >> changed, I think

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hello Steffen, On Wed, Nov 15 2017, Steffen Möller wrote: > I would really like to see updates performed in some automated > fashion. Maybe into a different section of Debian like sid-auto? The > problem with that obviously is the missing scrutiny by the human > maintainer, so it cannot go

Re: Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 04:43:17PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > I would really like to see updates performed in some automated fashion. I think this is an excelent idea, at least for the case of updates from eg 2.0.3 to 2.0.4 or some such, and also of course accompanied with automated tests.

Auto-update for sid? Auto-backport?

Hello, my QA page or our blend's task page (like https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio-ngs) regularly informs me about updates that should be performed to packages I alone maintain or (more likely) with the help of my blend. The updates are often (but now always, admittedly) easy to do. I