gnuab archive consistency, bugs in BTS

[Aurelien Jarno]

Petr Salinger a écrit :
> Hi all.
> 
> I found some unexpected things in archive:
> 
> 1) more than one version of a binary package in unstable (23 times)
> 2) more than one version of a binary package in unreleased (3 times)
> 3) more than one version of a binary package in unreleased+unstable (187 times)
> 
> can be retested by something like
> PKGS=/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.gnuab.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-kfreebsd-i386_Packages
> cat $PKGS | grep ^Package: | sort | uniq -c | grep -v "^      1"
> 
> For 1), 2) the reason can be
> - binary package is provided by more than one source package - mysql-server
> - obsoleted source package, which is no longer in official debian unstable - fprobe-ng
> - source package changed from any to all - postgresql
> 
> For 3) the reason can be also that the same source package is provided by 
> both unreleased and unstable. This is the case for 37 source packages:

That's because Guillem has disable obsoleting, it was causing some 
problems since the experimental repository has been added. AFAIK, he is 
working on fixing the code.

> There are many unsubmitted patches, 
> unreleased contains 449 source packages with following suffixes:
> 
> 100 +cfg 
> 120 +libtool
> 203 +kbsd
> 
> In BTS, there are listed at about 225 unfixed packages, see
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=kfreebsd;users=glibc-bsd-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org;pri0=pending:pending,forwarded,pending-fixed,fixed,done,absent;ttl0=Outstanding,Forwarded,Pending%20Upload,Fixed%20in%20NMU,Resolved;pri1=pending%3dpending%2btag%3dwontfix,pending%3dpending%2btag%3dmoreinfo,pending%3dpending%2btag%3dpatch,pending%3dpending%2btag%3dconfirmed,pending%3dpending;ttl1=Will%20Not%20Fix,More%20information%20needed,Patch%20Available,Confirmed,Unclassified;ord1=2,3,4,1,0,5
> 
> According to bug titles, suffixes would be
>  40 +cfg
>  35 +libtool
> 150 +kbsd 

I have something like 20 patches sitting on my disk, mainly for +kbsd. I 
haven't found the time to send them now, I will try ASAP.

> Is there any reason to not submit bug reports for classes +cfg and +libtool ?

A lot of those packages does not have the corresponding bug in the BTS, 
because it was not the rule to send the corresponding patches to the BTS 
sometimes ago.

As for +libtool, it was intentional not to report bugs for KDE package, 
as most of the developpers refused to update admin/libtool.m4.in if it 
does not come from the KDE repository (people usually does a CVS update 
in the admin/ directory to do such an update). The patch has been merged 
in the upstream SVN of KDE recently, so that is now possible to ask them 
to update the admin/ directory. However, I haven't looked at how it 
could be done, now that KDE has moved from CVS to SVN.

> My intent is to submit them in a batch for following source packages:
> have the +cfg/+libtool in unreleased, not listed in our unstable (i.e. above 37 packages), no bug report tagged kfreebsd
> Text would be based on http://glibc-bsd.alioth.debian.org/porting/  
> reportbug_cfg and reportbug_libtool.
>  
> Should I exclude more of them ? Should I (or anyone else) submit only +cfg ?
> Is there any other suggested approach ?

I think you can do that for +cfg packages. As for +libtool, please don't 
report bug for KDE packages, they have to be handle separately (anyway, 
the standard text is not right for KDE packages).

Aurelien

-- 
   .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
  : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
  `. `'   aurel32 at debian.org         | aurelien at aurel32.net
    `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net