Bug#851639: ITP: alacritty -- A cross-platform, GPU-accelerated terminal emulator

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Eric Dorland * Package name: alacritty Upstream Author : Joe Wilm * URL : https://github.com/jwilm/alacritty * License : Apache 2.0 Programming Lang: Rust Description : A cross-platform, GPU-accelerated terminal emulator

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Santiago Vila writes: > No, really it's not. It's already current practice: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=subject%3AFTBFS;submitter=lamby%40debian.org > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?include=subject%3AFTBFS;submitter=lucas%40debian.org > https://bugs.deb

Upcoming changes to APT architecture restriction list (wildcards) support

Hi, as a lot of people are already aware, APT and dpkg have disagreed on architecture wildcards for quite some time, because the approach taken in apt was "weird". I have just committed a change that makes APT uses dpkg's triplet or tuplettables, depending on how new your dpkg is: https://anonsc

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:45:42PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > No, this is not current practice. But you are obviously trying to force > it this way by all means necessary. Nobody asks you from refraining to > report those kind of bugs but what I and other people are seriously > questioning is

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Am 16.01.2017 um 23:45 schrieb Markus Koschany: > No, this is not current practice. But you are obviously trying to force > it this way by all means necessary. Nobody asks you from refraining to > report those kind of bugs but what I and other people are seriously > questioning is your handling of

Your best source for personal finance knowledge

Your best source for personal finance knowledge

Re: "not authorised" doing various desktoppy things [and 1 more messages]

On 15/01/17 13:43, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Jackson writes ("Re: "not authorised" doing various desktoppy things [and > 1 more messages]"): >> More news later today. > > I have just uploaded systemd-shim 10-3~exp1 to experimental. I seems > to fix the problem for me. Depending on feedback, I wi

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On 16.01.2017 22:00, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:02:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Santiago Vila writes: >> >>> Should I ask the Technical Committee to rule out that FTBFS bugs are RC, >>> even if they did not happen in buildd.debian.org yet? >> >> This seems excessively

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:02:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Santiago Vila writes: > > > Should I ask the Technical Committee to rule out that FTBFS bugs are RC, > > even if they did not happen in buildd.debian.org yet? > > This seems excessively aggressive. No, really it's not. It's already

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Santiago Vila writes: > Should I ask the Technical Committee to rule out that FTBFS bugs are RC, > even if they did not happen in buildd.debian.org yet? This seems excessively aggressive. I've had FTBFS bugs in my packages that were due to specific configurations for archive mass rebuilds that

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Jan 16, 2017, at 06:01 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: >Right now the plan is to have _passing tests_ (well, regressionless >ones) _reduce_ the migration delay. Failing tests would be the same >as no tests. One other important point for the Ubuntu infrastructure is that the autopkgtests are a ratchet.

Bug#851603: ITP: ruby-rails-assets-underscore -- underscore.js for rails applications

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Sruthi Chandran X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name: ruby-rails-assets-underscore Version : 1.8.3 Upstream Author : 2009-2015 Jeremy Ashkenas, DocumentCloud and Investigative Reporters & Editors * URL : htt

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > The before/after comparison for Debian and Ubuntu is apples and oranges. > Before Ubuntu had the auto package test migration there we nothing other than > installability blocking migration, it had (and still doesn't AFAIK) any >

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS"): > I'm sure it's generally helped, but so far, I've found it mostly a > nuisance. If Debian started enforcing auto package test pass for > Testing migration, Right now the plan is to have _passi

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS"): > In summary: > > * We will introduce it in a non-enforcing mode to see how it works >(and weed out any "early-implementation bugs") > * Passing tests will be grounds for reduced age require

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Ole Streicher: >>> >> What is the reason not to use automated bug reports here? This would >>> >> allow to use all the tools the bug system has: severities, reassigning >>> >> closing etc. >> > >> > [...] > I already don't understand this with the piuparts blocker: we have an > established workflow

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Ian Jackson: > Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse > dependencies fail or cause FTBFS"): >> [...] > > The question is whether marking a test non-blocking should involve the > release team. I think it should not. It should involve the package > maintainer (unless th

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Monday, January 16, 2017 12:09:02 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 16, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >This is going to take a lot of work. I see random failures routinely block > >migrations in Ubuntu (postfix is a current example - there's two alleged > >regressions that to the ex

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Jan 16, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >This is going to take a lot of work. I see random failures routinely block >migrations in Ubuntu (postfix is a current example - there's two alleged >regressions that to the extent they are valid are completely unrelated to >anything that chan

Re: Bug#851306: ITP: freebayes -- Bayesian haplotype-based polymorphism discovery and genotyping

On Monday, January 16, 2017 05:37:45 PM Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:44:45AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > I think the package name should indicate the field for which it is > > > meant (freebayes-genetic-variance), > > > > At least its good to know that ftpmaster is readi

Re: Bug#851306: ITP: freebayes -- Bayesian haplotype-based polymorphism discovery and genotyping

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:44:45AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > I think the package name should indicate the field for which it is > > meant (freebayes-genetic-variance), > > At least its good to know that ftpmaster is reading here to not accept > previously uploaded package wis unchanged name.

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Monday, January 16, 2017 01:06:19 PM Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello all, > > Scott Kitterman [Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:54:26 -0500] > > > Probably the simplest way to avoid problems with systems like this is to > > remove any autopkg tests your packages are shipping. > > > > P.S. Perverse incentives F

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Ole Streicher writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS"): > Ian Jackson writes: > > * It eliminates a timing problem, where the testing migration > >infrastructure[1] needs to somehow decide whether the test have >^^^ reference/f

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS"): > Until an unreliable test is fixed, in my opinion it'd be better if the > test suite didn't fail because of it. Run the test by all means, to > gather more information for debugging, but don't fa

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Santiago Vila writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS"): > Well, it does not work: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=843038#10 > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=841098#78 I agree that there are sometimes problems w

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS"): > If the failure of the test is not critical, then it should not be used as a > gate for CI. Which means you, as the package maintainer who knows that this > test failure is not critical, should

Re: Trademark issues (Was: kronatools_2.7+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

Andreas Tille writes ("Re: Trademark issues (Was: kronatools_2.7+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)"): > I admit I feel a bit blocked. Should I simply upload with another > possibly improperly choosen name and wait for ftpmaster comments to the > upload in new? It seems this topic does not deserve a

Bug#851574: ITP: clickhouse -- ClickHouse is an open-source column-oriented database management system

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Jean Baptiste Favre -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 * Package name: clickhouse Version : 1.1.54133 Upstream Author : Alexey Milovidov * URL : https://clickhouse.yandex/ * License : Apache Programming La

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:17:48PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > Santiago Vila writes: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:24:59AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > > > >> IMO, we should trust the maintainer and their decisions until there is > >> no experience that it doesn't work. Which means: keep the m

Re: installing kernel debug symbols on stretch?

On 2017-01-14 11:06:51 [+0100], Daniel Pocock wrote: … > deb http://debug.mirrors.debian.org/debian-debug/ stretch-debug main > non-free contrib not that this changes anything, but I assumed that deb http://deb.debian.org/debian-debug stretch-debug main was the way to use for stretch+. But

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:07:11AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > LOL, but I don't see a lot of social exclusion here: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=sanv...@debian.org;tag=ftbfs-randomly > > Sometimes I've seen maintainers downgrade FTBFS bugs to "wishlist"! > > Surely I

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Hello all, Scott Kitterman [Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:54:26 -0500] > Probably the simplest way to avoid problems with systems like this is to > remove any autopkg tests your packages are shipping. > > P.S. Perverse incentives FTW. No, that won't work at all. If you upload libfoo which regresses a rev

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Hello all, (I'm not subscribed, thus hand-crafting In-Reply-To:; please keep CC'ing me on replies). Ole Streicher [Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:57:09 +0100] > Will there be a way to override this for the maintainer? Otherwise I > would see the danger that a buggy reverse dependency CI test can prevent > a

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Santiago Vila writes: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:24:59AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > >> IMO, we should trust the maintainer and their decisions until there is >> no experience that it doesn't work. Which means: keep the maintainer >> fully responsible on the package, including the ability to l

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Quoting Santiago Vila (2017-01-16 11:07:11) > Sometimes I've seen maintainers downgrade FTBFS bugs to "wishlist"! > > Surely I will not invite those maintainers to a party, but they are > still maintaining Debian packages. > > Should I ask the Technical Committee to rule out that FTBFS bugs are R

Bug#851565: ITP: r-cran-urltools -- GNU R vectorised tools for URL handling and parsing

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andreas Tille * Package name: r-cran-urltools Version : 1.6.0 Upstream Author : Oliver Keyes * URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=urltools * License : MIT Programming Lang: GNU R Description : GNU R vectori

Bug#851567: ITP: r-cran-crul -- simple HTTP Client for GNU R

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andreas Tille * Package name: r-cran-crul Version : 0.2.0 Upstream Author : Scott Chamberlain * URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=crul * License : MIT Programming Lang: GNU R Description : simple HTTP Clie

Bug#851563: ITP: r-cran-httpcode -- GNU R HTTP Status Code Helper

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andreas Tille * Package name: r-cran-httpcode Version : 0.2.0 Upstream Author : Scott Chamberlain * URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=httpcode * License : MIT Programming Lang: GNU R Description : GNU R HT

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:24:59AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > IMO, we should trust the maintainer and their decisions until there is > no experience that it doesn't work. Which means: keep the maintainer > fully responsible on the package, including the ability to lower > severity of a CI test

Bug#851562: ITP: r-cran-triebeard -- GNU R radix trees in Rcpp

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andreas Tille * Package name: r-cran-triebeard Version : 0.3.0 Upstream Author : Oliver Keyes * URL : https://cran.r-project.org/package=triebeard * License : MIT Programming Lang: GNU R Description : GNU R radix

Re: Bug#851306: ITP: freebayes -- Bayesian haplotype-based polymorphism discovery and genotyping

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 09:19:37PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > I think the package name should indicate the field for which it is > meant (freebayes-genetic-variance), At least its good to know that ftpmaster is reading here to not accept previously uploaded package wis unchanged name. ;-) I'm

Re: Bug#851306: ITP: freebayes -- Bayesian haplotype-based polymorphism discovery and genotyping

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 05:46:54PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> As long as a package search for freebayes returns this in the result > >set, I don't think it's critical to have the package name match exactly > >the upstream name. > > > >Do you care only about the *package* name or do you care

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:38:42AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > Picture this: a cocktail party. Many people mingling around, dressed > up and engaging in smalltalk, sipping colourful drinks. A new couple > arrives and is immediately surrounded by old fiends. "Hi, Jack and > Joan, how are you? Ho

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Hi Lars, Lars Wirzenius writes: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 08:50:57AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: >> Sean Whitton writes: >> > I agree with the principle that test failures should be RC by default. >> >> This is something which seems to have no disagreement here. My concern >> is just that I wan

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 at 10:38:42 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > A failing test means there's a bug. It might be in the test itself, or > in the code being tested. It might be a bug in the test environment. Nobody is disputing this, but we have bug severities for a reason: not every bug is release-c

Bug#851542: ITP: jenkins-job-builder-pipelin -- pipeline job generation plugin for jenkins-job-builder

Package: wnpp Followup-For: Bug #851542 Owner: "Andrew Lee (李健秋)" Thanks for catching this typo. :)

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 08:50:57AM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote: > Sean Whitton writes: > > I agree with the principle that test failures should be RC by default. > > This is something which seems to have no disagreement here. My concern > is just that I want to have a simple way to override this,

Re: Auto reject if autopkgtest of reverse dependencies fail or cause FTBFS

Sean Whitton writes: > I agree with the principle that test failures should be RC by default. This is something which seems to have no disagreement here. My concern is just that I want to have a simple way to override this, to assign this to a different package etc. I want to have the same flexib