:) On 26/10/20 2:04 pm, Andreas Tille wrote: [...] >>> I also fully subscribe your suggestions for future improvements[1]. >>> In addition I see two issues content-wise inside the QA pages: >>> >>> 1. I want to add some information about "package is not in testing". >>> This information is not yet queried in the SQL query but it should >>> be relatively easy to get when checking the UDD dashboard code. >> >> I will dig UDD code and try to add that information. I will write back >> if I need help understanding what needs to be shown. > > I think I have read somewhere about the source of > > https://udd.debian.org/dmd.cgi > > which also contains "testing migration" information. It should not be to > hard to code this yourself but I learned that there is a pitfall for every > query. So re-using existing code is sensible. Re-use sounds like the way to go. > >>> 2. There are some issues displayed on the med-bio task[2] for instance >>> for packages augur and barrnap. UDD returns "Erroneous package" >>> which turns finally out that some dependencies are not available >>> on all architectures that are tested. As far as I know we can not >>> do much about it (to be clarified with CI team). I think it would >>> be helpful to suppress things we can not do anything about. >> >> I believe tests have three states: success or failure when the tests run >> fully and error when tests could not run fully due to problems with >> testing code. I believe 'Erroneous package' corresponds to the later >> case. I will confirm that this is the case and submit changes accordingly. > > Sound sensible - but I wonder whether there are cases where some work > from packagers side is left. When the test code actually has a bug and does not run then packagers need to get involved. Perhaps this can be distinguished with tests failing on some arches vs. all arches. Or perhaps there is more information can help us here. >> Meanwhile, will >> it be okay to merge websentinal changes for FreedomBox without the >> metapackage entering unstable? > > The websentinel works perfectly without any metapackage (may be the > text on the html page talks about metapackages that do not exist - but > well, that's a thing we can ignore for some time). Nevermind, I just noticed that FreedomBox's configuration is already committed to the websentinal repository. Thanks, -- Sunil
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x36C361440C9BC971.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature