Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> (2014-09-13): > Control: submitter -1 Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> > Control: tag -1 moreinfo > > On Sat, 13 Sep 2014, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (2014-09-07): > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > I'm wondering whether it would make sense to ask owner@bugs.debian.org > > > for a d-i.debian.org pseudo package which could be used to track > > > bugs/proposed changes for d-i's infrastructure. This includes but is > > > not limited to: the various scripts generating reports on > > > d-i.debian.org, scripts used to manage i18n/l10n bits, or various > > > cross-package tasks. > > > > Dear owner, > > > > could you please introduce a d-i.debian.org pseudo package with > > debian-boot@lists.debian.org as its maintainer? > > I can; can you provide the text for this psuedopackage's description Looking at the existing descriptions[1], I'd go for something like: d-i.debian.org -- Issues regarding the d-i.debian.org service and general Debian Installer tasks. 1. https://www.debian.org/Bugs/pseudo-packages.en > as > well as an example of a few bugs which will be filed there? [The latter > is mainly so that I know that the psuedopackage will be used; they don't > have to yet be filed in the BTS... a few links to messages on -boot > which are bugs which would have been filed is good enough.] Sure, things like this would have been tracked there: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/d-i/trunk/scripts/testing-summary/gen-summary?r1=69167&r2=69316 https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2014/09/msg00406.html More needed tweaks to scripts there (running on dillon = d-i.d.o) would be documented there, like not sending broken kernel ABI bump notifications mails when the remote host is down: | May 31 Linux kernel wa (0.3K) Linux kernel ABI bump in testing: from 3.14-1 to (none) | May 31 Linux kernel wa (0.3K) Linux kernel ABI bump in unstable: from 3.14-1 to (none) | May 31 Linux kernel wa (0.3K) Linux kernel ABI bump in experimental: from 3.15-rc7 to (none) | Jun 01 Linux kernel wa (0.3K) Linux kernel ABI bump in testing: from (none) to 3.14-1 | Jun 01 Linux kernel wa (0.3K) Linux kernel ABI bump in unstable: from (none) to 3.14-1 | Jun 01 Linux kernel wa (0.3K) Linux kernel ABI bump in experimental: from (none) to 3.15-rc7 and also when the version in experimental disappears because it got uploaded/superceded in unstable. We could have used it to track this instead of relying on my having the mail flagged in my maildir: https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2014/09/msg00423.html We could also use it to track the fact that serving this file properly (announced as utf-8) would be nice: http://d-i.debian.org/translations.txt Cross package tasks could include reviewing the fonts package (ttf-* vs fonts-* aren't using the same namespace yet, at least as far as udebs are concerned). The #740151 bug against ttf-cjk-compact-udeb might involve some infra check and/or changes and it would make sense to have it tracked (either reassigned to or using a blocking bug against d-i.debian.org). I'm also tempted to open a bug report when preparing each d-i release and using blocks to keep track of bugs we want to get fixed before a given release. I hope this illustrates what was quoted in my initial mail. Please let me know if you need more examples. Having given all these examples, it makes me feel like “debian-installer” would be slightly better, but it's already a real package. “d-i” would work too but I guess having a well identified “d-i.debian.org” name would avoid any confusion, even if all bugs aren't about this actual, particular host/service. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature