[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Candidates for removal from testing (2013-06-30)


Thanks a lot for this work.

On 30/06/13 at 23:32 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> We are considering removing the following packages from testing as
> they have unfixed RC bugs filed against them.  The packages can be
> found in the attached dd-list.
> The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
>  - The package had at least one RC bug without activity for the past
>    14 days.
>    - If a bug is assigned to multiple packages, both packages will
>      be affected[1].
>  - The RC bug affects both unstable and testing.
>  - The affected package does not have any reverse dependencies in
>    testing.
>  - One of their RC bugs had "FTBFS" in their title. (*)
>  - The source package had ai popcon inst value of 500 or less. (*)
> (*) These extra filter rules was applied to keep the list "down".  The
> original list was 246.
> If the relevant RC bugs in the affected packages (those listed in
> "FTBFS-w-popcon-lt-500.txt") are not dealt with before the 8th of
> July, the packages will be removed from testing.  Note that "dealt
> with" may also include downgrading a severity-inflated bug or fixing
> affected versions in the BTS.
> For reference, the original list is also included.

Those criterias mix:
- criterias that apply to the RC bugs (no activity for > 14 days,
  affects testing+unstable, title contains "FTBFS")
- criterias that apply to the source package (no rev-depends,

Some time ago, I experimented[1,2,3] with coming up with a list of
criterias for "important packages" (which I just renamed to "key
packages" to avoid the confusion with priority:important).
Key packages are packages that must be part of our stable releases
(= that must be in good shape to allow a Debian release).

Currently, the following criterias are used:
| Key packages are:
| - packages whose popcon is higher than 5% of the max popcon (that's
|   >7570 insts currently)
| OR
| - packages of priority >= standard
| OR
| - packages of section debian-installer
| OR
| - debian-installer, debian-cd, piuparts
| OR
| - build-dependencies of key packages [binary dependencies are covered
|   by the popcon criteria]

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/05/msg00496.html
[2] http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/key_packages.cgi
[3] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-qa/udd.git;a=blob;f=web/cgi-bin/key_packages.cgi

I think that having such criterias, and such a list of packages, would
be useful to better direct the work of RC bug-fixing. For example, there
are currently 1517 RC bugs affecting sid, but only 287 RC bugs affecting
sid's key packages. Of course, fixing all those 1517 RC bugs would be very
nice, but we might want to focus first on the 287 bugs, as those are the
ones really preventing Debian from being releasable.
Typically, the "key package" criteria could be used as a filter on
http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi .

Could you please comment on the criterias for key packages?  I would like
an "OK" from the release team before adding this to bugs.cgi, so that it's
not just "lucas made up those criterias".



Reply to: