Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-04 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 20:33 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 04.01.2017 um 19:53 schrieb Margarita Manterola: > > > Can we accelerate the removal of non key packages, please? > > > > One example: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libsigc++-1.2 migrated to > > testing on Dec 29th even though it has

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-04 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 04.01.2017 um 19:53 schrieb Margarita Manterola: > Can we accelerate the removal of non key packages, please? > > One example: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libsigc++-1.2 migrated to > testing on Dec 29th even though it has an RC bug that was intended to > keep it out of it. > > For

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-04 Thread Margarita Manterola
Hi, On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > We thought about rolling back to the previous state, but that means testing > users who have already upgraded would need to manually downgrade... which > is not > good. > > So we may just wait for the

Re: Migration despite an RC bug? [and 1 more messages]

2017-01-04 Thread Ian Jackson
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Migration despite an RC bug?"): > An exception in my experience: In process is cheaper when the > (de)compressor is available in the PerlIO Layer as native C code. > Notable example being libperlio-gzip-perl where you use "open(my $fd, > '<

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-03 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Niels Thykier wrote: > An exception in my experience: In process is cheaper when the > (de)compressor is available in the PerlIO Layer as native C code. > Notable example being libperlio-gzip-perl where you use "open(my $fd, > '<:gzip', $file)". > At least that was the case

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-03 Thread Russ Allbery
Niels Thykier writes: > Russ Allbery: >> I've done extensive benchmarking of this in Perl for a different >> project and yes, fork and exec of an external compresser is *way* >> faster than using a library. I suspect the Perl compress libraries are >> making extraneous data

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-03 Thread Niels Thykier
Russ Allbery: > [...] >> I wouldn't have expected that either, but it appeared to be 4-5 times >> slower than the equivalent code with fork a decompressor, which is why I >> swapped it out. [I didn't bother to benchmark them, because the >> differences between them was so stark.] > > I've done

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-03 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > If you're using DB_File, I think you have to use the explicit put() > and get() API instead of the tied magical hash in order to get error > reporting. That matches what documentation I've found so far. Instead of really working on hacking this out,

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-03 Thread Russ Allbery
Don Armstrong writes: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: >> Also, have you checked whether your DB library properly throws errors >> on writes to a tied hash ? > I don't know whether it does or not; I went looking to see whether you > could trap errors on untie(), and

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-03 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 03 Jan 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: > The result is that you ignore nonzero exit status from your > decompression program. My theory for the incident we are discussing is > that your decompressor got a SIGTERM, and your script got EOF on the > pipe. Yeah, this is likely it. Thanks for

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2017-01-03 Thread Ian Jackson
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Migration despite an RC bug?"): > On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Ian Jackson wrote: > > I've debugged a lot of this kind of thing. Point me at your > > (pre-just-fixed) code and I might spot it ? > > These two are how I think I've fixed it:

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-31 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016, Ian Jackson wrote: > Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Migration despite an RC bug?"): > > I'm still not quite sure how the script was failing. The outer shell > > invocation which calls a perl script to do the versioning database > > update is run w

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-30 Thread Ian Jackson
Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Migration despite an RC bug?"): > I'm still not quite sure how the script was failing. The outer shell > invocation which calls a perl script to do the versioning database > update is run with set -e, and the perl script should exit with non-zero &g

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-30 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote... > > > Unforunately, the BTS exported a broken/incomplete RC bug list, and britney > > used > > that and didn't see that some packages had an RC bug, so it allowed them to > > migrate. > > Ouch, that's quite a

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-30 Thread Bálint Réczey
Hi, 2016-12-30 12:53 GMT+01:00 Guillem Jover : > Hi! > > On Fri, 2016-12-30 at 09:25:20 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 29/12/16 23:36, Christoph Biedl wrote: >> > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote... >> >> Unforunately, the BTS exported a broken/incomplete RC bug list,

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-30 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Fri, 2016-12-30 at 09:25:20 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 29/12/16 23:36, Christoph Biedl wrote: > > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote... > >> Unforunately, the BTS exported a broken/incomplete RC bug list, and > >> britney used > >> that and didn't see that some packages had an RC

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-30 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 29/12/16 23:36, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote... > >> Unforunately, the BTS exported a broken/incomplete RC bug list, and britney >> used >> that and didn't see that some packages had an RC bug, so it allowed them to >> migrate. > > Ouch, that's quite a nightmare.

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-29 Thread Christoph Biedl
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote... > Unforunately, the BTS exported a broken/incomplete RC bug list, and britney > used > that and didn't see that some packages had an RC bug, so it allowed them to > migrate. Ouch, that's quite a nightmare. While I'm curious to learn how this happened and what is

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-29 Thread Ole Streicher
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort writes: > On 29/12/16 17:24, Ole Streicher wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the python-numpy package in unstable has an RC bug: >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/849196 >> >> however, today it migrated to testing, the migration status still says >> however "valid

Re: Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-29 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 29/12/16 17:24, Ole Streicher wrote: > Hi, > > the python-numpy package in unstable has an RC bug: > > https://bugs.debian.org/849196 > > however, today it migrated to testing, the migration status still says > however "valid candidate". > > I thought that RC bugs would prevent packages

Migration despite an RC bug?

2016-12-29 Thread Ole Streicher
Hi, the python-numpy package in unstable has an RC bug: https://bugs.debian.org/849196 however, today it migrated to testing, the migration status still says however "valid candidate". I thought that RC bugs would prevent packages from migration -- what is the exception here? Best regards